Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—E.D.N.Y.: Hasidic employee, denied tenure during medical leave, takes some claims to trial, (Jan 21, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

Inconsistencies in two letters explaining the superintendent’s decision suggested the official “realized the impropriety of her first letter and sought to conceal that impropriety by sending the second letter.”

A Hasidic Jewish school principal, who was denied tenure due to the superintendent’s extension of her probationary status during her medical leave, and who also claimed the school official unfairly denied her request for paid leave and told her to “get thick skin” and “get over herself” when she declined to meet with a male teacher alone based on her religious tenets, survived summary judgment on certain federal and state law claims alleging disability discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. However, a federal district court in New York dismissed her claims alleging the defendants engaged in religious discrimination by refusing to hire an assistant principal after her promotion, and also rejected her theory that requiring her to use vacation days in lieu of paid leave constituted an unlawful failure to accommodate her disability (Gahfi v New York City Department of Education, No. 23-cv-1782 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2026)).

The employee worked for DOE for over 25 years, and she served as a school’s assistant principal (AP) for 15 years. In 2018, she was promoted to be the school’s principal and began her mandatory probationary period. Despite numerous requests, DOE did not fill the vacant AP position she left behind.

No paid leave after work injury. During her probationary period, she suffered a workplace injury and visited the school nurse, who indicated her injury was minor. After she was still in pain two weeks later, she saw a doctor and learned her injury was more serious. She notified the superintendent that same day, and three weeks later the HR office provided instructions for applying for paid medical leave. However, the superintendent denied her application because she did not notify the superintendent about her injury within the first 24 hours. As a result, she expended hundreds of her accumulated vacation days.

Probationary period extended. While on medical leave, she received two letters from the superintendent stating that her probationary period was being extended, the effect of which was the denial of tenure. The letters were sent about two months after she had filed a complaint of discrimination with the DOE’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO).

The first letter was undated, unsigned, and briefly stated that that, “Due to your leave, I have been unable to assess your ability as a leader. Therefore, I would like to extend your probation by one year.” The second letter was dated, signed, and about four times longer than the first letter. It described specific instances of her conduct that allegedly led the superintendent to be concerned with her “effectiveness and impact across the school community.” It also allegedly reflected a decision that was “conducted using the Multidimensional Principal Performance Rubric and Principal Tenure Decision Making Framework.”

Can’t meet with male teacher alone. The employee returned from medical leave ahead of the 2022-2023 school year, at which time she needed to hold initial planning meetings with her staff. Her religion did not allow her to be alone with any man other than her husband, and because DOE had not hired a new AP, she needed to find someone else to accompany her to a meeting with a male teacher. When she reminded the superintendent of her religious practices prior to that meeting, the superintendent allegedly told her to “get thick skin” and “get over herself,” and also reprimanded her afterwards for her decision not to meet with the male teacher alone.

Resigns and sues. The employee resigned in January 2023 and subsequently filed this lawsuit alleging discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment (HWE) under federal and state law. The court previously dismissed her federal HWE claim and her state retaliation claims.

Refusal to hire AP not adverse. The DOE first argued that the employee’s Title VII claim of religious bias failed since its refusal to hire an AP did not constitute an adverse employment action. The court agreed, noting that with or without an AP, she voluntarily accepted the promotion to principal, which was not adverse. The court also rejected her claim that the DOE was obligated to assign her an AP based on a statement in the union contract that it “is generally best practice” to have at least one AP per school, concluding that “[b]est practice is a far cry from a contractual obligation.”

No inference of bias, pretext. Moreover, the circumstances under which the DOE elected not to hire an AP could not give rise to the inference of religious bias. Significantly, this alleged adverse action was based on the employee’s promotion, which would not have occurred if the decisionmakers harbored discriminatory animus. There was also no evidence suggesting that the DOE’s budgetary-based justification for not hiring an AP was pretextual. Though she pointed to non-Hasidic principals of other schools that had an AP, she failed to refute evidence that the DOE’s budget would not allow for one at her school due to low enrollment.

NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Her religious discrimination claim also failed under the less demanding standards for liability under the NYCHRL and NYSHRL. Although the superintendent’s alleged remarks might have been “insensitive and offensive,” they were “no more than a petty slight.”

Disability discrimination. Turning to her ADA and related state-law claims, the court found that her failure-to-accommodate theory based on the denial of her paid leave request failed since she was permitted to take unpaid leave, and she was not entitled to the “best” accommodation. However, she survived summary judgment on her claim that the DOE discriminated against her based on her disability by extending her probationary period while she was on medical leave, resulting in the denial of tenure.

First, bias could be inferred from the superintendent’s first letter regarding the extension of her probationary period, which suggested she was concerned with the employee’s leadership skills because she took medical leave. The inconsistencies between the first and second letter also provided “just barely enough evidence of pretext.” While the first letter was short, curt, unsigned, and only stated that the employee’s “ability as a leader” was being questioned due to her medical leave, the second letter was more “corporate” in tone, and set forth specific examples purportedly justifying the superintendent’s concerns. This created a triable issue as to pretext since “a reasonable jury could interpret this sequence of events to mean that [the superintendent] realized the impropriety of her first letter and sought to conceal that impropriety by sending the second letter.”

Retaliation. The employee’s ADA and Title VII retaliation claims also advanced to trial. First, causation could be inferred from the two-month temporal proximity between her first discrimination complaint with the DOE’s OEO and the superintendent’s notification about extending her probationary period and denying her tenure. Though the DOE claimed the superintendent was not aware of her complaints, her knowledge was irrelevant since there was “general corporate knowledge” by virtue of the complaint being submitted on DOE’s own platform. Moreover, the inconsistent explanations for the extensions as set forth in the first and second letters provided evidence of pretext.

HWE claims. Finally, the employee advanced her HWE claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL, which only required her to show that she was “treated less well because of a discriminatory intent.” In addition to the conduct that supported her other claims, she pointed to the denial of her paid leave request, allegedly due to the 24-hour rule. Such a strict application of the policy was inconsistent with the policy itself, which provided that the rule did not apply when “reasonable grounds exist for a delay.” Moreover, the HR office did not provide her with instructions to apply for paid leave until over a month after her injury. Nonetheless, the superintendent cited the 24-hour rule in denying he request, forcing her to instead use vacation days that she had accumulated over her entire career.

Viewing the “totality of the circumstances,” a reasonable jury could find that the superintendent’s offensive comments, unwarranted negative feedback, and seemingly arbitrary denial of the employee’s request for paid leave compounded the negative effects of the other conduct supporting her other claims, and as such created a HWE under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.

The case is No. 23-cv-1782 (BMC).

Judge: Cogan, B.

Attorneys: Zaki Isaac B. Tamir (Tamir Law Group) for Hadar Gahfi. Andrea Maria Martin, NYC Law Department, for New York City Department of Education. Companies: New York City Department of Education

MainStory: TopStory Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination Retaliation StateLawClaims NewYorkNews GCNNews