Bloomberg v. The N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

1

JILL BLOOMBERG, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and CARMEN FARINA, Defendants.

No. 17 Civ. 3136 (PGG)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

February 10, 2023

ORDER

PAUL G. GARDEPHE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff Jill Bloomberg - a high school principal at Park Slope Collegiate - brings this action against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) and its chancellor (collectively, “Defendants”). The Amended Complaint claims that a DOE investigation of Plaintiff s conduct - purportedly premised on her violation of a DOE regulation governing DOE employees' activity on behalf of political organizations - was retaliatory and in violation of her rights. (Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 39) ¶¶ 1, 4-6) The Amended Complaint further pleads that the DOE regulation on which the investigation was premised does not apply to her alleged conduct and, in any event, is unconstitutionally vague. (Id. ¶¶ 88-89, 118-120)^[1]

The Amended Complaint pleads claims for a violation of Due Process, and for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d-l et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (the “NYCHRL”), N.Y.C Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. (Id. ¶¶ 4-5, 111-51)

Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint's First Amendment, Title VI, and Due Process claims. (Mot. (Dkt. No. 77); Am Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 39) ¶¶ 111-51) On September 24 2019, this Court granted Defendants' motion in its entirety (the “September 24, 2019 Opinion”). (Dkt. No. 89)

On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). (Dkt. No. 93) The proposed SAC alleges a Due Process claim and retaliation claims under Title VI and the NYCHRL. (See generally Proposed SAC (Dkt. No. 941)) On September 23, 2021, this Court denied Plaintiffs motion to amend her Due Process and Title VI retaliation claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her NYCHRL claim (the “September 23, 2021 Order”). (Dkt. No. 108)

Plaintiff has now moved pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 for reconsideration of the September 23, 2021 Order. Plaintiff seeks reconsideration only as to that portion of the September 23 2021 Order that addresses her Title VI retaliation claim. (Reconsideration Mot. (Dkt. No. 111) at 1)^[2] In that claim, Plaintiff alleges that she suffered retaliation at work after she complained that DOE was offering “racially separated ... [and] unequal opportunities in [its] sports programs [for students at the schools sharing the John Jay Campus in Brooklyn].”^[3] (Proposed SAC (Dkt. No. 94-1) ¶ 58; see also id. ¶¶ 64-81 (“Within six weeks of plaintiffs Title VI Complaint, [Defendants] . . . informed plaintiff that she was under investigation ....

[P]laintiff believed, and still believes, that the [] investigation against her was retaliation for her complaint about the segregated sports programs.”)

For the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be granted, but leave to amend the Title VI retaliation claim will be denied.

BACKGROUND

I. THIS COURT'S DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF'S TITLE VI RETALIATION CLAIM AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND

In the September 24, 2019 decision dismissing, inter alia, Plaintiff s Title VI retaliation claim, this Court noted that 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-3 requires plaintiffs claiming employment discrimination under Title VI to plead “‘a logical nexus between the use of federal funds and the practice toward which [the] action is directed.'” (September 24, 2019 Opinion (Dkt. No. 89) at 24 (quoting Johnson v. Cty. of Nassau, 411 F.Supp.2d 171, 175 (E.D.N.Y. 2006))) This Court went on to dismiss the Amended Complaint's Title VI retaliation claim because Plaintiff did not “plead a nexus between the use of federal funds and the alleged discriminatory practice about which [she] allegedly complained, and for which complains she allegedly suffered retaliation: discrimination in the [Public School Athletic League]'s sports programs.” (Id. at 25)

Relying on Verdi v. City of New York, 306 F.Supp.3d 532 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), this Court found the Amended Complaint's factual allegations insufficient to plead the necessary nexus:

The Amended Complaint alleges only that “[a]t all times relevant the DOE was and is a recipient of federal funding for purposes of Title VI,” and “[t]he New York City DOE receives Federal Financial Assistance.” (Am. Cmplt. (Dkt. No. 37) ¶¶ 23, 125) These allegations do not sufficiently plead the requisite “logical nexus.” See Verdi, 306 F.Supp.3d at 546 (dismissing Verdi's Title VI claim because his “allegations regarding federal funding are bare and conclusory and do not describe the federal funding the DOE received, let alone link that funding to the students whose discrimination was the subject of Plaintiff's complaints”).

(Id.)

In response to this Court's dismissal order, Plaintiff sought permission to file a second amended complaint that adds the following allegations concerning DOE's receipt of federal funds:

23. ... the DOE receives federal funds pursuant to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which provides funds to schools which have a high percentage of families from impoverished backgrounds.

24. Schools qualify for Title I if a certain percentage of the students qualify for free or reduced lunch programs.

25. Because over 60% of the students at [Park Slope Collegiate, Plaintiffs school,] qualified for free or reduced lunch programs, [Park Slope Collegiate] receives Title I funds for school wide programs.

(Proposed SAC (Dkt. No. 94-1) ¶¶ 23-25; see also Id. ¶¶ 154-56)

II. THE SEPTEMBER 23,2021 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND HER TITLE VI RETALIATION CLAIM

In her motion for leave to amend, Plaintiff argued that she was not required to “show a logical nexus between federal funds received by the DOE and the sports programs allocated to [Park Slope Collegiate],” because any such requirement would be “program specific” and thus “prohibited by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987.” (Pltf. Reply Br. (Dkt. No. 104) at 6) Plaintiff did not cite to any case law interpreting or applying the Civil Rights Restoration Act. (See id. at 4-7)

In the September 23, 2021 order denying Plaintiff leave to amend her Title VI retaliation claim, this Court acknowledged Plaintiffs argument that a “‘program specific'” pleading requirement is ‘“prohibited by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987. (September 23, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 108) at 17 (quoting Pltf. Reply Br. (Dkt. No. 104) at 6)) But the Court nonetheless reaffirmed its holding that a plaintiff asserting a Title VI retaliation claim must “plead facts showing a nexus between the federal funding and the program at issue. (Id. at 1819) This Court went on to deny Plaintiff's motion to amend, finding that - despite Plaintiffs new allegations - “[t]he proposed SAC does not plead facts showing a nexus between the federal funding allotted to DOE and [the Public School Athletic League]'s sports programs.” (Id. at 19) In so holding, this Court relied on Verdi's holding that a Title VI retaliation plaintiff must show a link between the federal funds allotted to DOE and ‘the students whose discrimination was the subject of Plaintiff s complaint.' Verdi v. City of New York, 306 F.Supp.3d 532, 546 (S.D.N.Y. 2018).” (Id, at 17-18)

III. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff moved “pursuant to Local Rule 6.3 for an order reconsidering the [September 23, 2021 order denying Plaintiff leave to amend her Title VI retaliation claim].” (Reconsideration Mot. (Dkt. No. 111) at 1)

In her reconsideration motion, Bloomberg argues that this Court overlooked “[t]he clear language of the Civil Rights Restoration Act.. . prohibit[ting] the Court from requiring a plaintiff to show any kind of connection between the federal assistance a school system receives and a particular program or activity alleged to be discriminatory.” (Id. at 8) According to Plaintiff, this Court “committed clear error [in] denying Plaintiff s motion to amend her claim under Title VI” when it found that Bloomberg must “‘plead facts showing a nexus between the federal funding and the program at issue. (Id., (quoting September 23, 2021 Order (Dkt. No. 108) at 13))

Defendants contend that the motion for reconsideration should be denied, because Plaintiff has not “demonstrate[d] that the Order [denying leave to amend the Title VI retaliation claim] was issued in clear error.” (Def. Opp. (Dkt. No. 115) at 5) According to Defendants, Plaintiffs reconsideration motion merely repeats arguments previously rejected, and this Court did not overlook the Civil Rights Restoration Act (the “CRRA”) in its September 23, 2021 order denying leave to amend. (Id. at 5-6) In supplemental briefing ordered by this Court, Defendants argue that the CRRA “did not alter the pleading standard applied in cases of this Circuit in connection with employment-based retaliation claims brought pursuant to Title VI.” (Def. Supp. Br. (Dkt. No. 119) at 3). Defendant argues that Verdi was correctly decided and that -notwithstanding the CRRA's broad definition of “program or activity” - Bloomberg's proposed SAC remains deficient because it is “devoid of any allegation that participants in [Public School Athletic League] teams (he., the victims of the discrimination about which plaintiff complained) were the intended beneficiaries of the Title I funds received by DOE. (Id. at 4-5)

DISCUSSION

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Motions for Reconsideration

“Motions for reconsideration are governed principally by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 6.3, which are meant to ensure the finality of decisions and to prevent the practice of a losing part...