From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Feinstein v. Carranza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 24, 2021
Case No. 19-CV-3344 (FB) (RML) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2021)

Opinion

Case No. 19-CV-3344 (FB) (RML)

02-24-2021

MICHAEL FEINSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD A. CARRANZA, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants.

Appearances: For the Plaintiff: HOWARD BORKMAN 1501 Broadway, 21st Floor New York, New York 10036 For the Defendants: DEVIN S. COHEN Assistant Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Appearances:
For the Plaintiff:
HOWARD BORKMAN
1501 Broadway, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10036 For the Defendants:
DEVIN S. COHEN
Assistant Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007 BLOCK, Senior District Judge :

Michael Feinstein, a teacher employed by the New York City Department of Education, alleges that he was subject to a hostile work environment and otherwise subjected to discrimination based on his religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants move to dismiss on the ground that his complaint was not timely filed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

The cited statute requires a plaintiff to file his or complaint within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This time limit is treated "not as [a] jurisdictional predicate[], but as [a] limitations period[] subject to equitable tolling." Johnson v. Al Tech Specialties Steel Corp., 731 F.2d 143, 146 (2d Cir. 1984). In the absence of tolling, "the court cannot extend the limitations period by even one day." Id. (quoting Rice v. New England Coll., 676 F.2d 9, 11 (1st Cir. 1982)).

Feinstein's complaint alleges that he received a right-to-sue letter on March 6, 2019. His complaint was due to be filed by June 4, 2019. It was not filed, however, until June 5, 2019. He has not offered any grounds for equitable tolling. Indeed, he has not responded to the defendants' motion as all.

Thus, Feinstein's Title VII claim is untimely. And "[i]n general, where the federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well." Marcus v. AT&T Corp., 138 F.3d 46, 57 (2d Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the defendants' motion is granted and Feinstein's complaint is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

/S/ Frederic Block

FREDERIC BLOCK

Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York
February 24, 2021


Summaries of

Feinstein v. Carranza

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Feb 24, 2021
Case No. 19-CV-3344 (FB) (RML) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2021)
Case details for

Feinstein v. Carranza

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL FEINSTEIN, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD A. CARRANZA, in his official…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Date published: Feb 24, 2021

Citations

Case No. 19-CV-3344 (FB) (RML) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2021)