The opinion of the court was delivered by: SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, District Judge
The instant action arises out of Dr. Dina Dahbany-Miraglia's
employment with Queensboro Community College ("QCC"). Plaintiff claims
that QCC and the individual defendants, Dr. Leroy Paves and Dr. Robert
Simons, discriminated against her because of her gender, race (African
American), and age (65 at the time of the complaint). Plaintiff asserts
claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"); the
Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the New York State Human Rights
Law ("SHRL");and the New York City Human Rights Law ("CHRL"). Plaintiff
also claims she was the victim of unlawful retaliation. Defendants move
to dismiss the Complaint on various grounds including: (1) lack of
subject matter jurisdiction; (2) expiration of the statute of
limitations; (3) failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (4)
failure to satisfy certain conditions precedent. For the following
reasons, defendants' motion is granted in part and denied in part. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an African-American woman in her mid sixties who is
currently employed as a full-time, tenured professor at QCC.
A. The Alleged Discrimination*fn1
In the Spring of 1991, Dr. Miraglia was hired as an Adjunct Assistant
Professor to teach in QCC's Speech Department. Dr. Miraglia was rehired
in the Fall of 1995 as an Assistant Professor and was placed on a tenured
track. At that time, Dr. Helen Yalof was the Department Chairperson. Dr.
Yalof regularly and repeatedly screamed at plaintiff and demanded that
she perform menial, personal tasks including washing Dr. Yalof's laundry.
Dr. Yalof also took plaintiff off her tenured-track position and placed
her on a Sub Line at the lowest pay possible. On October 27, 1995,
plaintiff was reinstated to a full time tenured-track position by the
College Administration, a decision confirmed by a vote of the Personnel
and Budget ("P&B") Committee.*fn2
Dr. Paves became Department Chairperson in 1995. In addition to making
jokes about plaintiff and otherwise humiliating her, Dr. Paves was
instrumental in denying plaintiff reappointment in 1997 and again in
1999.*fn3 On January 20, 2000, after plaintiff became tenured, Dr. Paves physically threatened her,
causing her to file a report with Campus Security the next day. Dr. Paves
retaliated against plaintiff for filing this report in a number of ways:
Dr. Miraglia was moved into a cramped, poorly lit office; she was removed
as a member of QCC's P&B Committee; and she was denied leave to
travel to various presentations which resulted in the loss of publishing
opportunities. Finally, Dr. Miraglia's teaching schedule was changed
she was assigned classes at opposite ends of the campus even
though her severe arthritis made it extremely difficult for her to get to
class on time. This change in plaintiff's classroom schedule exacerbated
her leg and hip injuries.
In April 2001, Dr. Robert Simons replaced Dr. Paves as Department
Chairperson. Plaintiff claims that Dr. Simons perpetuated the abuse
started by Dr. Paves. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that Dr. Simons,
along with Dr. Paves, voted against plaintiff's promotion to Associate
Professor for three consecutive years. In addition, Dr. Simons gave
plaintiff an unsatisfactory review as part of the Chair's Annual
Evaluation in April 2001.
As a result of defendants' discrimination, Dr. Miraglia suffered loss
of past and future earnings, loss of other employment benefits, and
B. Plaintiff's Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC
Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on January 30, 2001 (the "2001 Charge").
In the 2001 Charge, plaintiff claims she was discriminated against on the
basis of age, race, sex, and in retaliation for filing an incident report
with Campus Security. Specifically, plaintiff's 2001 Charge states that
[s]ince October 1997 my chair [Dr. Paves] has
singled me out overtly as his target of
discrimination based on age, sex, race and
retaliation. He habitually screams and yells at me
and demeans me in front of faculty, students and
* * *
In October 2000 he [Dr. Paves] attacked me
physically. I filed an Incident Report at QCC.
Shortly thereafter he retaliated by moving me from
the spacious well-lit area which I've occupied
since September 1992 to a cramped, ill-lit desk in
the foyer of another office.
1/30/01 Charge of Discrimination. Plaintiff was issued a
right-to-sue letter on June 6, 2001.
Plaintiff filed a subsequent Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on
March 14, 2003 (the "2003 Charge"). The 2003 Charge claims retaliation
based on her earlier complaint which she describes as a "continuing
action." Specific allegations include:
discrimination by Dr. Paves beginning in
September 1995 escalating from 1997 to the
date of his removal as Department
Chairperson in March 2001
harassment by Dr. Simons from April 2001
until January 2003
denial of promotion to Associate Professor
on March 7, 2002, May 2, 2002, and May 24, 2002 denial of reappointment in 1997 and 1999
unfair treatment in connection with a
grievance filed in 2000
credentials questioned by the
Academic Review Committee on May 1, 2002
The EEOC issued a right-to-letter in connection with the 2003
Charge on July 14, 2003. The instant action was filed on October 10,
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
complaint should be dismissed if "it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would
entitle him to relief." Caiola v. Citibank, N.A., New York,
295 F.3d 312, 321 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted); see also Sweet v. Sheahan, 235 F.3d 80, 83 (2d Cir.
2000). When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a
court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and
draw all reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. See Chambers v.
Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir. 2002). Courts may not
consider matters outside the pleadings but may consider documents
attached to the pleadings, documents referenced in the pleadings, or
documents that are integral to the pleadings. See id. at 152-53.
At the motion to dismiss stage, the issue "`is not whether a plaintiff
is likely to prevail ultimately, but whether the claimant is entitled to
offer evidence to support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleading that a
recovery is very remote and unlikely but that is not the test.'"
Phelps v. Kapnolas, 308 F.3d 180, 184-85 (2d Cir. 2002) (per
curiam) (quoting Chance v. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 701 (2d Cir.
1998)). Therefore, the task of the court in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6)
motion is "`merely to assess the legal feasibility of the complaint, not
to assay the weight of the evidence which might be offered in support
thereof.'" Pierce v. ...