Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DICRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—S.D.N.Y.: Fired employee who sought to avoid duties promoting LGBTQ rights advances claims, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The close timing between her disclosure of her religious conversion and her firing, as well as a gay dean’s alleged “enraged” reaction to her expression of her religion, supported an inference of bias at the pleading stage.

The City University of New York (CUNY) lost its bid to dismiss Title VII religious discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a former fellowships coordinator who claimed that she was unlawfully terminated two months after she sought to be relieved of duties related to a pro-LGBTQ fellowship which, after her recent religious conversion, she had come to view as a “sinful lifestyle.” While CUNY argued that she was fired because of offensive remarks she made to her supervising dean, who is a gay man, including reciting a scripture passage which read, “If a man also lie with mankind they shall surely be put to death”—which she herself set forth in her pleadings—the court could not evaluate the purported non-discriminatory reasons for her firing at the pleadings stage. Denying in part the defendants’ partial motion to dismiss, the court also tossed her Section 1983 claims against CUNY and dismissed some of her state law claims against the individual defendants (Pagan v. Research Foundation of the City University of New York, No. 1:24-cv-06500-RA-KHP (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025)).

Fellowship promotes LGBTQ rights. In November 2021, the employee began working for Research Foundation of the City University of New York (RFCUNY) as the fellowships and public service program coordinator for the Colin Powell School for Civic and Global Leadership. Among her other job duties, she was responsible for recruiting students to ten different fellowships, including a fellowship whose purpose was “to place students in internships focused on the promotion of LGBTQ rights and causes.”

“Religious conversion.” In April 2022, the employee “experienced a religious conversion” to Christianity, and found her sincerely held religious beliefs to be in conflict with her job duties related to the fellowship that required “supporting and promoting” what she had come to view as a “sinful lifestyle.” On April 27, she met with her supervisor and asked that this aspect of her job be reassigned in light of this religious conflict. The supervisor stated that she needed more time to consider the request, and two weeks later, on May 9, the HR director advised her to submit a written request for accommodation.

Contentious meeting. On June 9, she met with the HR director and her supervising dean, who is a gay man. They allegedly did not discuss any possible accommodations. Instead, they “interrogated” her about her religious beliefs and made her repeat specific citations to scripture, during which time the dean was “visibly enraged.” When the HR director asked if they wished to say anything else, she asked to recite a scripture passage. After the dean “curtly” replied that “[s]he can say whatever she wants,” she recited a passage which read, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” She then stated, “Once I know, I am responsible. Once I am responsible, I will be held accountable. I am now saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost, so I must move accordingly. I have accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and there are certain beliefs and behaviors that come with that.”

Request denied, fired. “Minutes later,” she allegedly received an email from the dean denying her request for an accommodation on the basis of “undue hardship.” The email also allegedly implied that she should resign, but she declined to respond. About one week later, on June 17, she received notice that she was being placed on administrative leave, effective immediately. On June 22, she received written notification that her contract would not be renewed.

Lawsuit. She filed the instant action alleging a myriad of federal, state and city law claims against RFCUNY, CUNY, her supervisor, the dean, and the HR director. At issue was the defendants’ partial motion dismiss certain claim brought against CUNY, the supervisor, and the dean.

Inference of religious bias. The court denied the defendants’ bid to dismiss her Title VII religious bias claim against CUNY, rejecting the contention that she failed to meet her burden under the McDonnell Douglas framework to plausibly alleged circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. The close temporal proximity between her disclosure of her conversion to Christianity to her supervisor—as well as the dean’s alleged “enraged” reaction when she expressed her beliefs to him—and her termination shortly thereafter supported an inference of bias at the pleading stage.

Though CUNY argued that she was fired due to the offensive comments she made to the dean rather than because of her beliefs, whether an employer had a nondiscriminatory reason for firing an employee is an issue for the summary judgment stage, explained the court. And while CUNY argued that discovery was not necessary since she admitted to making offensive comments in her pleadings, the court could not consider at the pleading stage whether the employer found her to be “inherently offensive” and must “take seriously any such comments made in the workplace.”

Protected activity. The court also declined to dismiss her Title VII retaliation claim against CUNY. First, while the Second Circuit has not yet decided whether a request for a religious accommodation constitutes protected activity under Title VII, district courts in this circuit have held that it does, and the court followed their lead here. Moreover, the close temporal proximity (less than two months) between her first verbal request for accommodation her firing was also sufficient to infer a causal connection.

The court squarely rejected CUNY’s contention that her allegation that she was fired because of her request for accommodation was contradicted by her other allegations that she was fired for quoting scripture, her religious identity, and expressing her beliefs. Rather than being contradictory, these other alleged bases for her firing were “intertwined” with her request for accommodation. Furthermore, under Title VII, she need not show that retaliatory motive was the sole basis for her firing, so long as it was a “substantial” or “motivating” factor.

Immunity. However, the court dismissed her Section 1983 claims alleging that CUNY retaliated against her in violation of the First Amendment and her right to free exercise of religion, concluding that because CUNY is an arm of New York State, it was immune from these claims.

NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims. The court also dismissed the employee’s New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) discrimination claim against the dean since he was not an employer for purposes of the law. Her retaliation claim against him also failed since state appellate courts have held that under the NYSHRL, a request for a reasonable accommodation is not a protected activity. However, the court declined to dismiss her NYSHRL claim for aiding and abetting against the dean and her supervisor, as well her New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) discrimination and retaliation claims against them.

The case is No. 1:24-cv-06500-RA-KHP.

Judge: Abrams, R.

Attorneys: Teona Pagan, pro se. Matthew Joseph Lawson, Office of the Attorney General, for City University of New York, Deborah Cheng and Andrew Rich. Christopher John Moro (Nixon Peabody) for Research Foundation of the City University of New York.

Companies: City University of New York; Research Foundation of the City University of New York

Cases: ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge IndividualRights Retaliation CoverageLiability PublicEmployees Procedure StateLawClaims NewYorkNews