RINGEL v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (2022)

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 47 Motion for Summary Judgment:

On May 14, 2021, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See Defendants’ Notice of Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 47; Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 47-1; Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 49. Plaintiff opposed Defendants’ motion. See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 48. On October 28, 2021, I referred Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment to Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl for a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). See October 28, 2021 Order.

On February 4, 2022, Judge Merkl issued a thorough and well-reasoned R&R recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted in part and denied in part. See generally R&R, ECF No. 52. Specifically, Judge Merkl recommended that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be granted as to Plaintiff's standalone discrimination claim - to the extent that Plaintiff is bringing such claim - and as to Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (“Section 1983”) claim, and that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment be denied as to Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”), and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”). See R&R at 55.

On February 17, 2022, Defendants timely filed objections to the R&R, aimed at the R&R's recommendations with respect to Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims. See Defendants’ Objections to the February 4, 2022 R&R, ECF No. 53. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R, including as to those portions of the R&R recommending that summary judgment be granted in Defendants’ favor with respect to Plaintiff's standalone discrimination and Section 1983 claims. On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff filed a response to Defendants’ objections to the R&R. See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Objections to the February 4, 2022 R&R, ECF No. 54. In his response, Plaintiff requests that the R&R be adopted in full.

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (providing that a district court “must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to”); Arista Recs., LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2010) (“As to a dispositive matter, any part of the magistrate judge's recommendation that has been properly objected to must be reviewed by the district judge de novo.”); Lorick v. Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, No. 18-CV-07178, 2022 WL 1104849, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 13, 2022). To accept those portions of an R&R to which no timely objection has been made, however, “ ‘a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record.’ ” Lorick, 2022 WL 1104849, at *2 (quoting Ruiz v. Citibank, N.A., No. 10-CV-05950, 2014 WL 4635575, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2014)); see also Jarvis v. N. Am. Globex Fund, L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011).

Here, because no party has objected to the R&R with respect to Plaintiff's standalone discrimination and Section 1983 claims, the Court's review of the R&R with respect to those claims is for clear error. Having reviewed the R&R and finding no clear error with respect to the standalone discrimination and Section 1983 claims, I adopt the R&R as to those claims. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is granted as to those claims.

The parties dispute whether the Court's review of the R&R with respect to the remaining claims should be for clear error or de novo. Out of an abundance of caution, the Court applies de novo review. Defendants raise several objections to the R&R with respect to Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims. A careful review of the R&R, the record, and the applicable law, however, reveals that Defendants’ objections lack merit. Judge Merkl carefully considered the record evidence and the arguments of the parties, appropriately viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and resolved ambiguities in Plaintiff's favor, correctly applied the legal standards relevant to the different claims, and properly concluded that summary judgment would not be appropriate on Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims as genuine disputes of material fact remain. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as to those claims.

In sum, having considered the objections raised by Defendants and having reviewed the R&R under the standards of review applicable to Plaintiff's various claims, the Court adopts the R&R. Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 47, is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff's standalone discrimination and Section 1983 claims and is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.

Diane Gujarati, Judge