Alaei v. State Univ. of N.Y. at Albany

1

DR. KAMIAR ALAEI, Plaintiff, v. STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY, HAVIDAN RODRIGUEZ, individually and in his official capacity on behalf of the STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY, BRUCE P. SZELEST, individually and in his official capacity on behalf of the STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY, and JAMES R. STELLAR, individually and in his official capacity on behalf of the STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY, Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-00377 (BKS/TWD)

United States District Court, N.D. New York

September 7, 2022

For Plaintiff: Joseph F. Castiglione Young Sommer, LLC.

For Defendants: Letitia James Attorney General for the State of New York Helena O. Pederson David C. White Assistant Attorneys General, of Counsel.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

HON BRENDA K. SANNES, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kamiar Alaei brings this action against the State University of New York at Albany (“SUNYA”), his former employer, as well as Defendants Havidan Rodriguez, Bruce P Szelest, and James R. Stellar (collectively, “individual defendants”).^[1] (Dkt. No. 1). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants: discriminated against him on the basis of sex, in violation of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (“Title IX”); discriminated against him on the basis of race, religion, and national origin, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; and deprived him of due process and equal protection, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Id.). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to amend the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 to add a state law claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, (Dkt. No. 23), and Defendants' cross-motion under Rule 12(c) for partial judgment on the pleadings, (Dkt. No. 24). Both parties have filed opposition and reply papers. (Dkt. Nos. 24, 33, 38, 39). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion to amend is denied as futile, and Defendants' cross-motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is granted in part and denied in part.^[2]

II. FACTS^[3]

A. Plaintiff's Background and Employment with SUNYA

Plaintiff, a male born and raised in Iran and of Shi'i/Yarstan faith, is “a global health policy expert” who studies “medicine, epidemiology, international health, health policy, and international human rights law.” (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 25, 28). He began his career promoting the prevention and care of HIV/AIDS and helped develop several harm-reduction programs, as well as a medical clinic, in Iran. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 31). While in Iran, Plaintiff was convicted of trying to overthrow the government “in a secret, one-day trial” and was detained for two years. (Id. ¶ 29). He states that his conviction and resulting detention stemmed from his association with the United States and the Iranian government's opposition to his work. (Id.). Plaintiff continued his work upon his release; he was published in various academic journals and won several awards, including the Ellis Island Medal of Honor Award. (Id. ¶¶ 26-27, 31-34).

In 2014, Plaintiff was appointed by SUNYA as a lecturer and director of SUNYA's Global Institute for Health and Human Rights (“GIHHR”), which he founded. (Id. ¶¶ 34, 36). The GIHHR's goals “were to advance the understanding and protection of health and human rights in a theoretical, academic, practical, and ethical context.” (Id. ¶ 36). Plaintiff's employment was effectuated by Appointment Letter in April 2014 and renewed through 2018. (Id. ¶ 37; Dkt. No. 1-1, at 2-3 (August 16, 2014 Appointment Letter)). His contributions to SUNYA were consistently commended, and having received no discipline or negative evaluations, Plaintiff was promoted to Associate Dean for Global and Interdisciplinary Research in January 2016. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶¶ 39-42). He was also the “principal investigator of two major federal grants,” making him responsible for securing approximately three million dollars in funds. (Id. ¶ 61).

As part of his employment, Plaintiff was a member of the United University Professions, and as such, was entitled to the benefits and protections established in the 2011-2016 Contract Between United University Professions and the State of New York (“UUP Agreement”). (Id. ¶¶ 43-44). The UUP Agreement provided Plaintiff with certain rights pertaining to disciplinary actions. (Id. ¶ 46). It stated that discipline could only be imposed for “just cause,” and that SUNYA employees must receive a notice specifying both the conduct for which discipline is being imposed and the proposed penalty. (Id. ¶ 47). The UUP Agreement also included several anti discrimination provisions. (See Dkt. No. 1-2, at 4). Specifically, in §§ 10.1 and 10.2, the State agreed to continue its “established policy prohibiting discrimination” on race, religion, national origin, and sex. (Id.).

B. Plaintiff's Placement on Alternative Assignment

On February 8, 2018, acting in response to concerns allegedly raised about Plaintiff in a student complaint,^[4] Randy Stark, an Associate Vice President in SUNYA's Office of Human Resource Management, sent a letter to Plaintiff invoking the alternative assignment provision of the UUP Agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 53, 55, 220).^[5] However, Plaintiff alleges that neither SUNYA, nor Stark, provided him with any explanation as to why he was placed on alternative assignment. (Id. ¶ 56). The letter instructed Plaintiff not to discuss the matter with anyone, including SUNYA staff, students, and alumni, and SUNYA subsequently blocked Plaintiff from accessing university facilities and email. (Id. ¶¶ 57-60). Additionally, SUNYA informed numerous individuals and institutions that Plaintiff had been removed as director of the GIHHR and replaced with two new co-directors; both were non-Iranian white females. (Id. ¶ 69). SUNYA did not inform Plaintiff, or anyone else, why Plaintiff was removed as director, and thus, Plaintiff alleges that SUNYA “implied to [Plaintiff's] colleagues and others . . . that it believed there was ‘just cause' to replace” Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 68). Several days later, SUNYA personnel emailed Plaintiff to recommend that he contact all venues with which he had previous commitments and advise them not to describe his previous affiliation with the GIHHR and SUNYA. (Id. ¶ 71). The same email advised Plaintiff that he could only participate in public events in his personal capacity, and also prohibited Plaintiff from engaging in any education programs offered by SUNYA. (Id.).

Following Plaintiff's placement on an alternative assignment, Stark began a Title IX investigation. (Id. ¶¶ 93, 95). However, Plaintiff alleges that Title IX personnel later disclosed that there was never a formal or informal complaint made against Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 190).

C. Plaintiff's Letters of Complaint and Grievance

In letters dated February 16 and 28, 2018 to SUNYA, Plaintiff's attorney wrote objecting to SUNYA's actions toward Plaintiff, demanded that SUNYA comply with the UUP Agreement, and demanded that SUNYA “provide [Plaintiff] with access to his email accounts and allow [Plaintiff] to address his federal grant projects.” (Id. ¶ 87). On March 20, 2018, Plaintiff filed a grievance pursuant to the UUP Agreement alleging that SUNYA wrongfully disciplined him by removing him from his position “without conducting [a] fair and unbiased investigation.” (Id. ¶¶ 122-24). By letter dated May 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed an additional grievances “appealing his initial March 2018 grievance to Step 3” under the UUP Agreement. (Id. ¶ 179).^[6]

D. Discussions of Plaintiff's “Non-Renewal”

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had decided as early as March 2018 that Plaintiff would not be returning. A March 26, 2018, email exchange between Brian Selchick, a SUNYA employee, and Chantel Cleary, SUNYA's Title IX Coordinator, reflects Cleary's understanding that, at that point it had been agreed that Plaintiff would not be returning to his position and Selchick's understanding that Plaintiff would need to return for a “short” period of time before the “non-renewal pre buy out.” (Dkt. No. 1-6, at 2). Notes dated April 3, 2018, reflect Selchick's ideas for how to “maintain the integrity of the non-renewal W/ or W/O the [Notice of Discipline]/ Interrogation.” (Dkt. No. 1-8, at 2). The notes also state that it was SUNYA's “[g]oal . . . to make sure [Plaintiff] does not come back.” (Id.). If performance evaluations were necessary to support non-renewal, Selchick indicated that SUNYA “could recreate them.” (Id.). On April 4, 2018, Leslie Zwicklebauer advised Selchick, Stark, and Cleary that, if they wished to seek non-renewal of Plaintiff's employment, they would need a “current performance program and an evaluation” before issuing a formal notice of non-renewal. (Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 142).

Several weeks later, on April 28, 2018, SUNYA personnel contacted Dr Harvey Charles, Plaintiff's supervisor, and asked him to sign a document for Plaintiff's non-renewal. (Id. ¶ 150). However, the document was addressed to Provost Stellar and written as if Dr. Charles authored it himself. (Id. ¶ 151). Dr. Charles refused to sign the document because he felt uncomfortable making a recommendation “without a basis to do so,” and asked that the matter be handled differently. (Id. ¶ 152). Nevertheless, on April 30, 2018, SUNYA personnel provided Plaintiff with a proposed non-renewal document indicating that Dr. Charles recommended Plaintiff be non-renewed. (Id. ¶ 161). Dr. Charles wrote to Stark in early May 2018 to inform him that he never signed the document because he had no basis on which to recommend non-renewal; he also indicated that he would not seek such information as it was “clear to [him] that the provost ha[d] decided not to renew Kamiar's contract.” (Id. ¶...