Smith v. St. John's University et al

Filing 15

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss: See attached order granting in part, denying in part, and denying as moot the motion to dismiss, 8 . This order memorializes my oral order issued on July 1, 2011. Ordered by Judge John Gleeson on 7/6/2011. (Glaser, Miriam)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------X
WILLIAM SMITH,
Plaintiff,
- against -

ORDER
11-CV-457 (JG) (JO)

ST. JOHN’S UNIVERSITY, DENISE
VENCAK-TONER, in her individual and
official capacity, THOMAS LAWRENCE,
in his individual and official capacity,
CYNTHIA PICO-SIMPSON, 1
in her individual and official capacity,
Defendants.
------------------------------X
JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:
In this action plaintiff William Smith alleges race-based discrimination against his
employer, defendant St. John’s University (the “School”), and three of its employees, defendants
Denise Vencak-Toner, Thomas Lawrence, and Cynthia Fico-Simpson (together, “defendants”),
in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.;
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; 42 U.S.C. §
1981; and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. L. § 296 et seq.
Defendants have moved to dismiss Smith’s Title VI claim, arguing that federal
money is not implicated in Smith’s employment and that therefore Title VI does not apply to
him. Defendants further argue that the Title VII claim cannot be brought against individual
defendants, but only against the School itself. Finally, defendants argue that the NYSHRL claim
1

This defendant was originally sued as “Cynthia Pico-Simpson”; however, in the motion to dismiss
the defendants note that her proper name is “Fico-Simpson.”

is time-barred. Plaintiff opposed the motion, and I heard oral argument on July 1, 2011. For the
reasons discussed on the record at oral argument and memorialized below, the motion is denied.
First, as stipulated by the parties on the record at oral argument, in order to cure
the pleading deficiency in the Title VI claim, Paragraph 80 of the complaint is deemed amended
to read as follows: “Defendant ST. JOHN’S receives federal financial assistance directly related
to plaintiff’s employment.” Second, Plaintiff has clarified in his papers and on the record that his
claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., is brought only
against St. John’s University and not against individual defendants. Third, Plaintiff has
withdrawn his claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. L. § 296 et seq.
Thus the motion to dismiss the state claim is granted on consent. The motion to
dismiss the federal claims as against the individual defendants is denied as moot. The motion to
dismiss the Title VI claims as against the School is denied.

So ordered.
John Gleeson, U.S.D.J.

Dated: July 6, 2011
Brooklyn, New York

2