Cases & Developments

Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, a Muslim migrant from Bosnia who is over the age of 40 and a non-tenure track faculty member at Teachers College, Columbia University, brought claims against the College for religious discrimination under Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and NYCHRL, and retaliation under Title VII, the ADEA, and NYCHRL alleging the College rejected her efforts to obtain tenure due to her religion and age, and because of her prior complaints of discrimination on those bases. Plaintiff contends she has been employed by the College for over a decade, published on numerous issues, and obtained multi-million-dollar grants for the College. She claims that although the College’s president and other leaders agreed that she is qualified for a tenure-track role, her applications have repeatedly been rejected, and that she unsuccessfully applied for a tenure-track position in 2012, 2013, and twice in 2024. She claims she communicated with colleagues about applying for positions in 2021 and 2022 but was discouraged from applying after hearing disparaging remarks about her age. Plaintiff alleges that while her 2012 application was pending, her supervisor asked around about her Muslim faith, and the position was ultimately awarded to a candidate who is not Muslim. She avers that the Department Chair told her that her Muslim background “doomed” her chances of ever obtaining tenure, and that overall, the College has a culture of anti-Muslim bias. Plaintiff alleges that after she filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the College retaliated against her by (1) disinviting her from a symposium at which she was scheduled to speak, (2) lowering her wages, and (3) denying her tenure-track request. The court found plaintiff’s allegation that her supervisor said she was “not a spring chicken” and her subjective belief that the supervisor “preferred to hire someone ‘young’ who had ‘youth’ and ‘energy’” were insufficient to maintain claims for age discrimination since plaintiff did not actually apply for the position. On the other hand, it allowed the religious discrimination claims to proceed, reasoning that being disinvited and excluded from a prominent speaking role at a symposium was a materially adverse employment action when paired with plaintiff’s allegations that College leaders made anti-Muslim remarks. The court permitted the retaliation claims to move forward based on plaintiff’s allegations that (1) mere months elapsed between her religious discrimination complaint and the rejection of her dual requests for tenure-track and tenured positions, (2) although she was eligible for a salary increase, her wages were reduced, and (3) her invitation to speak at the symposium was revoked a week after she filed litigation.