Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Friday, October 30, 2015

Happy Halloween - Dont Text and Fly

This Halloween, please do not text and fly....or drive, whatever.

Stay safe,

Betsy Combier




Pinkard v NYC DOE, United Federation of Teachers (2012) Federal Complaint

Below is the decision in the case Eugenia Pinkard v United Federation for Teachers, filed in 2012 in Federal Court. The case was dismissed because Ms. Pinkard sued on the basis of age and sex, instead of on the basis of race or color.


EUGENIA PINKARD, Plaintiff, - against - NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, UNITED FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, and ERIC CHEN, Defendants.

11 Civ. 5540 (FM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64207


May 2, 2012, Decided
 
May 2, 2012, Filed

CASE SUMMARY

OVERVIEW: Plaintiff former employee's claims against defendants, a former employer and a union, must have been dismissed for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies, under 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5(e), because her charge did not put the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on notice to investigate discrimination based on the employee's race or color; instead, the employee's EEOC charge was based solely on her age and sex.

OUTCOME: Motions granted. Complaint dismissed.

CORE TERMS: retaliation, discrimination claims, termination, administrative remedies, terminated, grievance, color, discontinuance, discriminatory, secretary, exhaust, nysut, reinstated, fair representation, conclusory, disability, sex, email, pro se, time barred, subject matter jurisdiction, national origin, protected activity, untimely, notice, woman, superintendent, probationary, employment discrimination, exercise of jurisdiction

LexisNexis® Headnotes


Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Jurisdiction > General Overview
Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Motions to Dismiss
Evidence > Procedural Considerations > Burdens of Proof > Preponderance of Evidence
HN1
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), a complaint must be dismissed if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court is not limited to the face of the complaint and may consider evidence outside the pleadings to resolve disputed factual issues. The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that subject matter jurisdiction exists.


Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Jurisdiction > General Overview
Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Failures to State Claims
Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Motions to Dismiss
HN2
When faced with a motion to dismiss pursuant to both Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), a court should decide the jurisdictional question under Rule 12(b)(1) first because a disposition of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is a decision on the merits, and therefore, an exercise of jurisdiction.


Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Failures to State Claims
HN3
A Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's claims for relief. In deciding the motion, a court must accept as true all factual allegations made in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. The complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations. Nonetheless, threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.


Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Failures to State Claims
Civil Procedure > Parties > Self-Representation > Pleading Standards
Evidence > Judicial Notice > General Overview
HN4
To survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Determining whether the allegations of a complaint nudge a plaintiff's claims across the line from merely conceivable to plausible requires a court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. In making its assessment, a court may consider, in addition to the plaintiff's factual averments, any written instrument upon which the plaintiff necessarily relies, regardless of whether it is attached to the complaint or incorporated therein by reference. When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a court also may rely on any opposition papers in assessing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims. Furthermore, a court may take judicial notice of indisputable facts. Fed. R. Evid. 201. Legal conclusions masquerading as factual averments, however, may not be taken into account.


Civil Procedure > Parties > Self-Representation > Pleading Standards
HN5
When a party is proceeding pro se, a court must read her pleadings liberally and interpret them to raise the strongest arguments that they may suggest. Dismissal of a pro se complaint is nevertheless appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum pleading requirements.


Labor & Employment Law > Discrimination > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > Coverage & Definitions > General Overview
HN6
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(a)(1).


Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Failures to State Claims
Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Pleadings > Complaints > Requirements
Labor & Employment Law > Discrimination > Disparate Treatment > Proof > Burdens of Proof
HN7
To establish a claim of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., an employee must show that: (a) she was a member of a class protected by the statute; (b) she was qualified for the position; (c) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (d) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. At the pleading stage, even if the employee is not required to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss, her claim must be facially plausible and must give fair notice to the defendant of the basis for the claim.


Labor & Employment Law > Discrimination > Retaliation > Burdens of Proof
Labor & Employment Law > Discrimination > Retaliation > Elements > General Overview
Labor & Employment Law > Discrimination > Retaliation > Statutory Application > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > General Overview
HN8
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has exercised her statutory right to complain about conduct that she considers discriminatory. 29 U.S.C.S. § 623(d); 42 U.S.C.S. §§ 2000e-3(a), 12203(a). A retaliation claim is not dependent on the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint. Consequently, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee need only show that: (a) she engaged in a protected activity; (b) the employer knew of this activity; (c) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (d) there was a causal relation between the adverse action and the employee's protected activity. Proof of causation can be shown either: (a) indirectly, by showing that the protected activity was followed closely by discriminatory treatment, or through other circumstantial evidence such as disparate treatment of fellow employees who engaged in similar conduct; or (b) directly, through evidence of retaliatory animus directed against the plaintiff by the defendant. Furthermore, mere temporal proximity between a plaintiff's protected activity and an adverse employment action may, by itself, be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation for purposes of proving a prima facie case.


Labor & Employment Law > Discrimination > Disparate Treatment > Proof > Burdens of Proof
Labor & Employment Law > Discrimination > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 > Coverage & Definitions > Labor Organizations

Discrimination by unions is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., which makes it an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(c)(1). A Title VII claim brought against a union, however, is evaluated differently than such a claim against an employer. To succeed on her claim, a plaintiff first must show that the union breached its duty of fair representation to her. A union breaches its duty of fair representation when (a) its conduct toward a member is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and (b) the alleged misconduct injures the plaintiff. If the plaintiff establishes a breach of the duty of fair representation, she then must show some indication that the union's actions were motivated by unlawful discrimination or retaliation.


Civil Procedure > Jurisdiction > Subject Matter Jurisdiction > General Overview
Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Failures to State Claims
Civil Procedure > Pleading & Practice > Defenses, Demurrers & Objections > Motions to Dismiss
Labor & Employment Law > U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission > Exhaustion of Remedies > General Overview
HN10
Since the exhaustion of administrative remedies is a precondition to bringing a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., claim in federal court, rather than a jurisdictional requirement, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)--rather than Rule 12(b)(1)--is the appropriate vehicle to evaluate the sufficiency of a plaintiff's efforts to exhaust her remedies.


Labor & Employment Law > U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission > Exhaustion of Remedies > Filing of Charges

Generally, a plaintiff may bring a Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq., claim in federal court only after filing a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or with a state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice. 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-5(e); 42 U.S.C.S. § 12117(a). Although exhaustion thus is ordinarily an essential element of a Title VII claim, claims not raised in an EEOC complaint may be brought in federal court if they are reasonably related to the claim filed with the agency. A claim raised for the first time in the district court is reasonably related to allegations in an EEOC charge where the conduct complained of would fall within the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination. The central question is whether the complaint filed with the EEOC gave that agency adequate notice to investigate discrimination of the type alleged in the civil complaint. Courts have consistently held that discrimination claims based on age, sex, or disability are not reasonably related to claims based on race or color, and vice versa.


COUNSEL:  [*1] Eugenia Pinkard, Plaintiff, Pro se, Brooklyn, NY.

For NYC Department of Education, Defendant: Asad Rizvi, LEAD ATTORNEY, New York City Law Department, New York, NY.

For UFT, Defendant: Stuart Lloyd Lichten, Lichten & Bright, P.C., New York, NY.

JUDGES: FRANK MAAS, United States Magistrate Judge.

OPINION BY: FRANK MAAS

OPINION
DECISION AND ORDER
FRANK MAAS, United States Magistrate Judge.
In this employment discrimination action, pro se plaintiff Eugenia Pinkard ("Pinkard"), an African-American woman, contends that the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") unlawfully terminated her employment as a school secretary because of her race. Pinkard further contends that her union, the United Federation of Teachers ("UFT"), and her UFT attorney, Eric Chen ("Chen"), unlawfully discriminated against her. In her complaint, (ECF No. 2 ("Compl." or "Complaint")), Pinkard expressly seeks relief only under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"). The parties have consented to my exercise of jurisdiction over this case for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 15).
The DOE, UFT, and Chen (collectively, the "Defendants") have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to  [*2] Rules 12(b)(1) and12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF Nos. 22, 33). For the following reasons, the Defendants' motions are granted and the Complaint is dismissed.
I. Background
A. Facts
Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are either undisputed or set forth in the light most favorable to Pinkard.
In September 2004, Pinkard began working as a school secretary at the High School for Civil Rights in Brooklyn. (ECF No. 39 ("Pl.'s Opp'n") Ex. 9). In October 2004, Pinkard was involved in an altercation instigated by a school aide. The school's principal concluded, however, that Pinkard's behavior "constitute[d] insubordination" and placed a letter to that effect in Pinkard's file. (Id. Ex. 4 at 3). At the conclusion of the school year, the principal recommended that the DOE discontinue Pinkard's probationary service. (Id. at 2). Thereafter, on June 23, 2005, the Local Instructional Superintendent ("LIS") acted upon that recommendation by denying Pinkard a certification that she had completed her probationary period. Pinkard's employment consequently was terminated effective August 29, 2005. (Id. Ex. 5 at 1).
On June 29, 2006, Pinkard went to the office of LIS Varleton  [*3] McDonald ("McDonald"), the successor to the LIS who had terminated Pinkard. (Pl.'s Opp'n at 4). Although that day was his last as the school's LIS, McDonald issued a letter reversing the discontinuance and instructing Pinkard to report to the Regional Operation Center ("ROC") for assignment. (Id. Ex. 6). Pinkard subsequently went to the ROC, where she presented the letter from McDonald, but was not given an assignment. (Id. at 4). Pinkard later learned that the ROC administrator with whom she spoke thought that McDonald was no longer an LIS at the time he issued the letter, rendering it ineffective. (Id.; see also id. Ex. 7 (email suggesting "McDonald was not the LIS of record on the date he affixed his signature to [his June 29 letter])).
On December 11, 2006, Pinkard filed a grievance with the DOE. In that grievance, Pinkard stated that:
(1) My discontinuance dated 7/23/05 [actually 6/23/05] was overturned by the superintendent on 6/29/06. I am asking for compensation for the time I was out of work and to be made whole in all ways. (2) I am owed 20 peak load hours from June 2005.
The above is in violation of Articles 3, 7 and 15 of the Agreement. As a remedy, I request to be made whole  [*4] by being paid monies owed to me in addition to 6% interest pursuant to State law.
(Id. Ex. 5 at 2).
On January 10, 2007, the District held a hearing to consider Pinkard's grievance, at which Pinkard evidently was represented by a UFT representative. (Pl.'s Opp'n at 4 & Ex. 5 at 3). Thereafter, in May 2008, Pinkard contacted the UFT because she had not received a decision regarding her grievance. (Id. Ex. 12). The UFT subsequently arranged for Chen, an attorney with the New York State United Teachers ("NYSUT"), to represent Pinkard.1 Chen then contacted McDonald, who confirmed that he was, in fact, still a LIS when he wrote the letter reversing Pinkard's discontinuance. (Id. Exs. 1 at 1, 11 ("Pl.'s Art. 78 Mem.") at 4). On September 8, 2008, Chen filed an Article 78 petition on Pinkard's behalf in Supreme Court, New York County, which contended that the DOE had "failed to perform a ministerial act required by law" by not reversing the discontinuance of Pinkard's employment. (See Pl.'s Art 78 Mem. at 1).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 The NYSUT is a federation of 1,200 unions, the largest of which is the UFT. See http://www.nysut.org/cps/rde/xchg/nysut/hs.xsl/about.htm (last visited on Apr. 24, 2012).

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
At some point after  [*5] Chen filed the Article 78 petition, the DOE proposed a settlement, pursuant to which Pinkard would receive back pay in the amount of $91,067 and be reinstated as a school secretary at the highest pay scale contractually permissible for her position. (See Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 1 (emails between Pickard and Chen discussing settlement offer)). Chen conveyed the offer to Pinkard, who rejected it because, among other things, she wanted the DOE to restore her to her position with tenure, pay her at an even higher rate, and add interest to the amount she recovered. (Id.; see Compl. at 11).
On March 26, 2009, the DOE hand delivered a letter to Pinkard instructing her "to report to the Brooklyn Integrated Service Center for an assignment in order to be reinstated to the position of School Secretary." (Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 3). The letter further instructed Pinkard to "go to 65 Court Street to . . . pick up your check for back pay." (Id.). Pinkard then sent Chen an email informing him of the letter and requesting guidance. Specifically, Pinkard wanted to know (1) why she was told to pick up a check when she had not signed any settlement papers, (2) whether she would receive a separate check for "per session"  [*6] pay and other back pay to which she believed she was entitled, and (3) whether a decision ever had been issued regarding her grievance. (Compl. at 50).
Chen replied to Pinkard's email the same day, informing her that:
It appears that rather than asking you to settle or sign anything, the DOE has unilaterally reinstated you to work and is just going to pay you the same money you were offered before. . . . They are arguing that since you are being offered back pay and your job back, that you have been given everything you seek and there is nothing left to ask the Court. But I don't see anything in the papers regarding the per session money, or the money you would have received since February.
(Id. at 49).
Chen further advised Pinkard to report for her work assignment as instructed in the letter because he feared that, if she failed to do so, the DOE would argue that she had refused to return to work and thus had abandoned her position. (Id.). Chen also recommended that Pinkard retrieve and deposit the check because "it may not be available to [her] later." (Id.).
Pinkard emailed Chen that evening, stating that:
I still want to make it clear that I want to proceed with the lawsuit[] if they  [*7] are not going to reinstate me wholly. I want to be reinstated wholly, I am not settling. If [] taking this money and returning to work is settling, I don't want it.
(Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 2). The next day, Chen sent Pinkard an email stating, "I don't believe taking the money and returning to work would be settling." (Id.).
On or about March 27, 2009, Pinkard picked up a check in the amount of $91,067.88 and reported to work. (Id. at 5). Instead of being assigned to a permanent position, however, Pinkard was sent to a "[r]ubber room," where, according to Pinkard, "people are sent for further investigation."2 (Id. at 3).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
2 "[R]ubber rooms, [also] known as reassignment centers," were notorious facilities where school employees accused of incompetence or misconduct would "show up every school day, sometimes for years, doing no work and drawing full salaries." Jennifer Medina, Deal Reached to Fix Teacher Discipline Process, N.Y. Times, Apr. 17, 2010, at Al. The UFT and City of New York agreed to discontinue the use of rubber rooms in the fall of 2010. Id.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thereafter, on August 25, 2009, Justice Marcy S. Friedman granted a motion to dismiss Pinkard's Article 78 petition as moot since Pinkard had been  [*8] reinstated to her position as a school secretary and awarded back pay. See Pinkard v. Bd. of Ed. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y., Index No. 112198 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County), Order dated Aug. 25, 2009. Although Pinkard opposed the motion, Justice Friedman found that it was "unclear why [Pinkard] contend[ed] that the amount of back pay was insufficient."3 Id. Justice Friedman therefore dismissed the petition "without prejudice to proper proceedings if still timely." Id.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3 In her opposition brief, Pinkard maintained that she was entitled to an additional $13,209.12 in back pay and should have been reinstated at a higher pay rate. (See Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 11 (Chen Affirm, in Opp'n to Resp'ts' Cross-Mot. to Dismiss)).

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On March 5, 2009, while her Article 78 petition was pending, Pinkard filed an "improper practice charge" with the New York Public Employment Relations Board ("PERB"). See In re Pinkard, No. U-28996, 43 P.E.R.B. ¶ 4623 (Dec. 21, 2010), available at 2010 WL 6771342. In that charge, Pinkard alleged that the UFT had violated "§ 209-a.2(c) of the Public Employees' Fair Employment Act . . . [because] the UFT attorney representing Pinkard did not advise her why a decision following  [*9] her grievance hearing had not been rendered." Id. By order dated December 21, 2010, after a hearing at which both Pinkard and Chen testified and the submission of post-hearing briefs, PERB found that Pinkard failed to establish that the UFT "acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily or in bad faith in representing [her]." Id. PERB also declined to address additional claims that were either untimely or raised for the first time in Pinkard's post-hearing brief. Id.
Pinkard was terminated again following the 2009-2010 school year. On August 16, 2010, the Superintendent of Brooklyn High Schools affirmed Pinkard's "Discontinuance of Probationary Service and Termination of License." (Pl.'s Opp'n Ex. 9 at 1). Following a hearing on January 5, 2011, before the Office of Appeals and Review, the District Superintendent reaffirmed Pinkard's discontinuance on February 7, 2011. (Id. at 3-4).
Pinkard contends that her second termination was in retaliation "for standing up to [her] Union, the New York City Department of Education and NYSUT." (Pl.'s Opp'n at 2). Specifically, Pinkard alleges that the UFT failed to vindicate her rights in retaliation for Pinkard having filed a charge with PERB. Pinkard further  [*10] maintains that the discontinuance of her probationary service was impermissible because her reinstatement should have resulted in her obtaining tenure, thereby causing her to be a non-probationary employee. (See id. at 5).
Although Pinkard brings this action pursuant to Title VII, the only reference to racial discrimination is found in the statement of facts section of her form Complaint, in which she states:
I was terminated by the [DOE] for being insubordinate to a school aide in 2005. The union never filed any charges against the [DOE]. When the union finally assigned me an attorney[,] the attorney coer[c]ed me into taking monies[,] which was not in my best interest regarding my case. I feel because I am a black woman neither of my representatives handled my case properly.
(Compl. at 3). The Complaint also mentions "wages [] being withheld as retaliation," but does not elaborate on that claim. (Id.).
B. Procedural History
After Pinkard filed a charge with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on April 14, 2011 (see ECF No. 37 (Decl. of Ass't Corp. Counsel Asad Rizvi, dated Nov. 28, 2011 ("Rizvi Decl."), Ex. C)), the EEOC issued her three right-to-sue letters on [*11] May 11, 2011, authorizing her to sue the DOE, UFT, and NYSUT (see Compl. at 5-7). Pinkard then commenced this suit in forma pauperis on July 29. 2011. (ECF. Nos. 1, 2). On November 3, 2011, the parties consented to my exercise of jurisdiction over this case for all purposes pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 15).
On November 7, 2011, the Court ordered that the Complaint and caption be deemed amended to add Chen as an individual defendant. (See ECF No. 14) On November 17, 2011, Pinkard apparently served the DOE with an amended complaint. (See EFC No. 25 ("Am. Compl." or "Amended Complaint"); DOE Mem. Ex. B). It is unclear whether the Amended Complaint ever was served on the UFT or Chen. The only difference between the Complaint and the Amended Complaint is the inclusion of the following underlined words in the statement of facts:
Originally I was terminated for being insubordinate to a school aide in 2005. The union never filed any charges against the [DOE]. The union finally assigned me an attorney. The attorney coer[c]ed me intl taking monies[,] which was not in my best interest regarding my case. I feel because I am a black woman and secretary neither of my representatives  [*12] handled my case properly[,] which resulted in me being terminated again Aug[ust] 2011.
(Am. Compl. at 3). The Court need not decide whether Pinkard properly served and filed the Amended Complaint because, even if she did, it would be subject to dismissal for the reasons set forth below.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
4 The original Complaint listed "NYC Dept of Ed Attorney" in the caption, but referred to an unnamed union attorney in the statement of facts. (See Compl. at 1, 3). The November 7 order incorrectly spelled Chen's last name as "Chin." (See ECF No. 36 ("DOE Mem.") at 3 n.1). The Complaint and caption therefore are deemed amended again to reflect the correct spelling of Chen's last name.5 Pinkard has the date wrong. Her second termination took place on August 16, 2010, and was effective that day.

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On November 22, 2011, the UFT filed a motion to dismiss, and, on November 29, 2011, the DOE did the same. (ECF Nos. 22, 33). Pinkard filed her opposition to both motions on December 27, 2011, (ECF No. 38), after which the DOE filed a reply on January 6, 2012 (ECF No. 39). The motions therefore are fully submitted.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
1. Rule 12(b)(1)
HN1Under Rule 12(b)(1), a complaint must be dismissed  [*13] if a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the action. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, a court is not limited to the face of the complaint and may consider evidence outside the pleadings to resolve disputed factual issues. State Emp. Bargaining Agent Coal. v. Rowland, 494 F.3d 71, 77 n.4 (2d Cir. 2007); Phifer v. City of N.Y., 289 F.3d 49, 55 (2d Cir. 2002). The plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that subject matter jurisdiction exists. Phifer, 289 F.3d at 55 (citing Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir. 2000)).
HN2When faced with a motion to dismiss pursuant to both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), a court should "decide the 'jurisdictional question [under Rule 12(b)(1)] first because a disposition of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is a decision on the merits, and therefore, an exercise of jurisdiction.'" Tirone v. N.Y. Stock Exch., Inc., No. 05 Civ. 8703 (WHP), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54255, 2007 WL 2164064, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 27, 2007) (quoting Magee v. Nassau Cnty. Med. Ctr., 27 F. Supp. 2d 154, 158 (E.D.N.Y. 1998)).
2. Rule 12(b)(6)
HN3A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim tests the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff's claims for relief. Krasner v. HSH Nordbank AG, 680 F. Supp. 2d 502, 511 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)  [*14] (Lynch, D.J.). In deciding the motion, a court must accept as true all factual allegations made in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Allaire Corp. v. Okumus, 433 F.3d 248, 249-50 (2d Cir. 2006). The complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)). Nonetheless, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
HN4To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). Determining whether the allegations of a complaint nudge a plaintiff's claims across the line from merely "conceivable to plausible" requires a court to "draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679-80. In making its assessment, a court may consider, in addition to the plaintiff's factual averments, any written instrument upon which the plaintiff necessarily relies, regardless of whether it is attached  [*15] to the complaint or incorporated therein by reference. See Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 2002).
When a plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a court also may rely on any opposition papers in assessing the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claims. See Crum v. Dodrill, 562 F. Supp. 2d 366, 373 n.13 (N.D.N.Y. 2008) (citing Gadson v. Goord, No. 96 Civ. 7544 (SS), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18131, 1997 WL 714878, at *1 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 17, 1997)). Furthermore, a court may take judicial notice of indisputable facts. See Fed. R. Evid. 201. Legal conclusions masquerading as factual averments, however, may not be taken into account. Smith v. Local 819 I.B.T. Pension Plan, 291 F.3d 236, 240 (2d Cir. 2002) (citing Gebhardt v. Allspect, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 2d 331, 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)).
HN5Because Pinkard is proceeding pro se, the Court must read her pleadings "liberally" and interpret them "to raise the strongest arguments" that they may suggest. Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Harris v. City of N.Y., 607 F.3d 18, 24 (2d Cir. 2010)). "Dismissal of a pro se complaint is nevertheless appropriate where a plaintiff has clearly failed to meet minimum pleading requirements." Carvel v. Ross, No. 09 Civ. 722 (LAK) (JCF), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25203, 2011 WL 856283, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2011). [*16] 

B. Applicable Law
1. Wrongful Termination
HN6Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer "to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
HN7To establish a claim of employment discrimination under Title VII, Pinkard must show that: (a) she was a member of a class protected by the statute; (b) she was qualified for the position; (c) she suffered an adverse employment action; and (d) the adverse employment action occurred under circumstances that give rise to an inference of discrimination. See Farias v. Instructional Sys., Inc., 259 F.3d 91. 98 (2d Cir. 2001). At the pleading stage, even if Pinkard is not required to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination to survive a motion to dismiss, see Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510-11, 122 S. Ct. 992, 152 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2002); Barbosa v. Continuum Health Partners, Inc., 716 F. Supp. 2d 210, 214-15 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (reconciling Twombly, Iqbal, and Swierkiewicz),  [*17] her "claim must be facially plausible and must give fair notice to the defendant[] of the basis for the claim,"Barbosa, 716 F. Supp. 2d at 215 (citing Fowler v. Scores Holding Co., Inc., 677 F. Supp. 2d 673, 679 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)).

2. Retaliation
HN8Title VII also makes it unlawful for an employer to retaliate against an employee who has exercised her statutory right to complain about conduct that she considers discriminatory. 29 U.S.C. § 623(d); 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-3(a), 12203(a). A retaliation claim is "not dependent on the merits of the underlying discrimination complaint." Davis v. State Univ. of N.Y., 802 F.2d 638, 642 (2d Cir. 1986). Consequently, to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee need only show that: (a) she engaged in a protected activity; (b) the employer knew of this activity; (c) the employer took adverse action against the employee; and (d) there was a causal relation between the adverse action and the employee's protected activity. Cifra v. Gen. Elec. Co., 252 F.3d 205, 216 (2d Cir. 2001); Holt v. KMI-Cont'l, Inc., 95 F.3d 123, 130 (2d Cir. 1996). "[P]roof of causation can be shown either: [a] indirectly, by showing that the protected activity was followed  [*18] closely by discriminatory treatment, or through other circumstantial evidence such as disparate treatment of fellow employees who engaged in similar conduct; or [b] directly, through evidence of retaliatory animus directed against the plaintiff by the defendant." Gordon v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 232 F.3d 111, 117 (2d Cir. 2000). Furthermore, mere temporal proximity between a plaintiff's protected activity and an adverse employment action may, by itself, be sufficient to create an inference of retaliation for purposes of proving a prima facie case. El Sayed v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 627 F.3d 931, 932 (2d Cir. 2010).

3. Title VII Claim Against a Union
HN9Discrimination by unions is prohibited by Title VII, which makes it "an unlawful employment practice for a labor organization . . . to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c)(1); see Yerdon v. Henry, 91 F.3d 370, 375 (2d Cir. 1996) (labor union liable under Title VII). A Title VII claim brought against a union, however, is evaluated differently than such a claim against an employer. To succeed on her claim,  [*19] Pinkard first must show that "the [u]nion breached its duty of fair representation to [her]." Oparji v. United Fed. of Teachers, 418 F. Supp. 2d 139, 147 (E.D.N.Y. 2006). A union breaches its duty of fair representation when (a) "its conduct toward a member . . . is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith," Marquez v. Screen Actors Guild, Inc., 525 U.S. 33, 44, 119 S. Ct. 292, 142 L. Ed. 2d 242 (1998), and (b) the alleged misconduct injures the plaintiff, Spellacy v. Airline Pilots Assoc.-Int'l, 156 F.3d 120, 130 (2d Cir. 1998). If Pinkard establishes a breach of the duty of fair representation, she then "must show some indication that the union's actions were motivated by unlawful discrimination or retaliation." Oparji, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 146.

C. Application of Law to Facts
1. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
The DOE contends that the Complaint must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) on the ground that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because Pinkard failed to allege discrimination based on race or color in her EEOC Charge. (See DOE Mem. at 7-8). Indeed, in her charge, Pinkard selected only "sex" and "age" as the "circumstances of alleged discrimination," omitting "race" or "color." (See Rivzi Decl.  [*20] Ex. C).
HN10Since the exhaustion of administrative remedies "is a precondition to bringing a Title VII claim in federal court, rather than a jurisdictional requirement," Francis v. City of N.Y., 235 F.3d 763, 768 (2d Cir. 2000) (quotation marks omitted), Rule 12(b)(6) — rather than Rule 12(b)(1) — is the appropriate vehicle to evaluate the sufficiency of a plaintiff's efforts to exhaust her remedies, see Holowecki v. Fed. Express Corp., 440 F.3d 558, 565 (2d Cir. 2006) (reviewing motion to dismiss complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Rule 12(b)(6)); Fernandez v. Chertoff, 471 F.3d 45, 51-52 (2d Cir. 2005) (same).
HN11Generally, a plaintiff may bring a Title VII claim in federal court only after filing a timely charge with the EEOC or with "a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Although exhaustion thus is "ordinarily an essential element of a Title VII claim, . . . [c]laims not raised in an EEOC complaint . . . may be brought in federal court if they are 'reasonably related' to the claim filed with the agency." Williams v. N.Y.C. Hous. Auth., 458 F.3d 67, 70 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting  [*21] Legnani v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A., 274 F.3d 683, 686 (2d Cir. 2001), and Butts v. City of N.Y. Dep't of Hous. Pres. & Dev., 990 F.2d 1397, 1401 (2d Cir. 1993)).
"A claim raised for the first time in the district court is 'reasonably related' to allegations in an EEOC charge 'where the conduct complained of would fall within the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.'" Holtz v. Rockefeller & Co., 258 F.3d 62, 83 (2d Cir. 2001) (quoting Butts, 990 F.2d at 1402). "The central question is whether the complaint filed with the EEOC gave that agency adequate notice to investigate discrimination [of the type alleged in the civil complaint]." Williams, 458 F.3d at 70 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Pinkard has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies because her charge did not put the EEOC on notice to investigate discrimination based on Pinkard's race or color. Instead, Pinkard's EEOC charge was based solely on her age and sex. (Rivzi Decl. Ex. C). Courts have consistently held that discrimination claims based on age, sex, or disability are not reasonably related to claims based on race or color,  [*22] and vice versa. See, e.g., Joseph v. Am. Works, Inc., No. 01 Civ. 8287 (DC), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9075, 2002 WL 1033833, at *5-6(S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2002) (disability claim dismissed for failure to exhaust because plaintiff asserted only Title VII race discrimination claims in her EEOC complaint); Coleman v. Bd. of Educ., No. 96 Civ. 4293 (GBD), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 619, 2002 WL 63555, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, 2002) (gender discrimination claim not reasonably related to national origin, race, or color discrimination claims); McNealy v. N.Y. Pub. Library, No. 96 Civ. 3023 (DAB), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15014, 1997 WL 607548, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 1997) (disability claim not reasonably related to race discrimination claim raised in EEOC charge); DiProjetto v. Morris Protective Serv., 489 F. Supp. 2d 305, 308 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (race, gender, and disability discrimination claims not reasonably related to discrimination claim based on national origin); James v. Fed. Reserve Bank of N.Y., No. 01-CV-1106 (RJD) (WP), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43493, 2005 WL 1889859, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2005) (race discrimination claim not reasonably related to disability, age, and gender discrimination charges raised before the EEOC).
Pinkard's claims against both the DOE and UFT therefore must be dismissed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)  [*23] for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies.

2. Timeliness
Even if Pinkard had exhausted her administrative remedies, most of her claims would have to be dismissed on the independent ground that they are untimely.
"Title VII . . . require[s] claimants to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC . . . within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory employment action; claims for acts that occurred more than 300 days before the filing are time-barred in federal court." Adams v. N.Y.S. Educ. Dep't., 752 F. Supp. 2d 420, 465 n.52 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117(a), 2000e-5(e)(1)). There are, however, several possible ways to overcome the limitations period. First, the Second Circuit has held that the 300-day limitations period is "subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling." Downey v. Runyon, 160 F.3d 139, 145-46 (2d Cir. 1998) (quotingZipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S. Ct. 1127, 71 L. Ed. 2d 234 (1982)). Additionally, a plaintiff may rely on the "continuing violation exception." See Patterson v. Cnty. of Oneida, N.Y., 375 F.3d 206, 220 (2d Cir. 2004). Under that exception, if a plaintiff "files an EEOC charge that is timely as to any incident  [*24] of discrimination in furtherance of an ongoing policy of discrimination, all claims of acts of discrimination under that policy will be timely even if they would be untimely standing alone."Nghiem v. U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 323 F. App'x 16, 17 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Patterson, 375 F.3d at 220). Nevertheless, "discrete discriminatory acts," such as termination, failure to promote, or refusal to hire, "are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges." Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 113-14, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106(2002). Thus, each "discrete act" of discrimination or retaliation "constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice." Id. at 114. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In this case, Pinkard's EEOC charges against the DOE and UFT evidently were filed no earlier than April 8, 2011. (See Compl. at 5-6; ECF No. 23 (Decl. of Stuart Lichten, Esq., dated Nov. 18, 2011), ¶¶ 4-5). Any claims related to DOE or UFT actions that occurred more than 300 days before April 8, 2011 — i.e., before June 12, 2010 — therefore are time barred. Consequently, Pinkard's claims relating to her termination in 2005, her grievance in  [*25] 2006, any shortcomings in her union representation in 2008-2009, and her reinstatement in 2009 are untimely. Furthermore, Pinkard has failed to allege any facts that suggest that the Defendants had an "ongoing policy of discrimination" that would warrant application of the continuing violation exception, see Nghiem, 323 F. App'x at 17, or any of the three other exceptions set forth in Downey, 160 F.3d at 145-46.
Pinkard's claims relating to events occurring before June 12, 2010 therefore are dismissed as time barred.6

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
6 This includes all of Pinkard's claims against Chen. Even if those claims were not time barred, her Title VII claims against Chen would have to be dismissed because individuals cannot be held liable under Title VII. See Mandell v. Cnty. of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 377 (2d Cir. 2003)Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119, 120 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam)

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
3. Failure to State a Claim
a. Wrongful Termination
To the extent Pinkard brings a Title VII claim arising out of her termination on August 16, 2010, and the UFT's subsequent failure to represent her, her claim would have to be dismissed even if it had been properly exhausted, for failure to allege facts giving rise to an inference  [*26] of racial discrimination. Pinkard's single, conclusory statement with respect to discriminatory intent — that she "feels" that neither the DOE nor the UFT "handled [her] case properly" "because [she] is a black woman" — clearly is insufficient to state a racial discrimination claim under Title VII. See, e.g., Reid v. Hebrew Home for the Age, No. 11 Civ. 1408 (GBD) (GWG), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29013, 2012 WL 698135, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 05, 2012) (plaintiff's conclusory statement that "defendant's acts were taken 'because of [her] race' . . . without more is insufficient to support a race discrimination claim") (brackets in original); Alvarez v. Rosa, No. 11 Civ. 3818 (KBF), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25693, 2012 WL 651630, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 28, 2012) (discrimination claim dismissed because "[p]laintiff provide[d] only speculations, labels and conclusions in support of her claims"); Mitchell v. Project Renewal, No. 09 Civ.1958 (CM), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8323, 2010 WL 481348, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2010) (plaintiff's conclusory statement, that "because I was African American, [plaintiff's supervisor] felt like I wasn't good enough to be a supervisor," insufficient to state a discrimination claim under Title VII). This shortcoming, of course, applies to any Title VII claim  [*27] that Pinkard might be able to assert with respect to earlier events.
Accordingly, all of Pinkard's Title VII claims are subject to dismissal for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

b. Retaliation
Pinkard also has failed to state a retaliation claim against the UFT based on its alleged failure to represent her following her August 2010 termination. Indeed, Pinkard has failed to demonstrate any "indication that the union's actions were motivated by unlawful discrimination or retaliation." Oparji, 418 F. Supp. 2d at 146. Pinkard similarly has set forth no facts substantiating her conclusory allegation that her "wages are being withheld as retaliation." Her retaliation claim consequently also must be dismissed.7

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
7 To the extent Pinkard seeks to assert a "hybrid" claim against the UFT for breaching its duty of fair representation under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), see DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164, 103 S. Ct. 2281, 76 L. Ed. 2d 476, (1983), that claim also must fail because federal courts lack "subject matter jurisdiction over duty of fair representation claims brought by employees of political subdivisions." Gear v. Dep't of Ed., No. 07 Civ. 11102 (NRB), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137153, 2010 WL 5297850, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2010)  [*28] (citing Ford v. D.C. 37 Union Local 1549, 579 F.3d 187, 188 (2d Cir. 2009)).

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Defendants' motions to dismiss, (ECF Nos. 22, 33), are granted. Moreover, because Pinkard failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and could not timely do so now, that dismissal is with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court accordingly is requested to close this case. The Court further certifies that any appeal from this Decision and Order would not be taken in good faith because it would be frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915: Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438. 445, 82 S. Ct. 917, 8 L. Ed. 2d 21 (1962).
Dated: New York, New York
May 2, 2012
/s/ Frank Maas
FRANK MAAS
United States Magistrate Judge