Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—2d. Cir.: Lebanese dentist partially revives bias claim against NYU, (Apr 4, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

There was a direct link between the dentist’s equal opportunity complaint and the denial of appointing him to an interim chair position, thus precluding summary judgment.

A Lebanese-born dentist sued NYU College of Dentistry after being denied a promotion, claiming hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation in violation of Section 1981, the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL. A federal district court granted summary judgment in NYU’s favor on the Section 1981 claims, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. The Second Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed in part, holding that the HWE claim was time-barred and there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether retaliation was the “but-for” cause of NYU’s decision regarding a permanent chair position. However, the court reversed summary judgment on an interim chair position, holding that a direct link between the dentist’s protected activity and an adverse employment action precluded summary judgment (El Chaar v. New York University College of Dentistry, No. 24-1169 ( 2d. Cir. April 2, 2025, unpublished)).

The plaintiff, a Lebanese-born dentist held various positions at the NYU College of Dentistry between 1995 and 2021, including as a part-time faculty member and program director of the Postgraduate Program in Periodontology.

Discriminatory remarks. During his tenure, the dentist reported experiencing discriminatory remarks related to his race and ethnicity from colleagues. In 2017, he formally complained to NYU’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), alleging discrimination and retaliation by the then department chair. The OEO found that the evidence supported a hostile work environment.

Interim chair. Following these complaints, the dentist expressed interest in becoming the interim chair of his department after the then-chair resigned. However, the dean informed him that he would not be appointed due to his OEO complaint, stating: “We are not appointing the chair because of your complaint to OEO. We need to have a chilling period. And you should have been the acting chair, but because of your complaint, we can’t—I can’t put you there.”

Second complaint. Following this interaction, the dentist filed a second OEO complaint alleging retaliation. In 2020, the dean acknowledged in a recorded conversation that the dentist would have been a “logical choice” for the interim chair position but cited “political reasons” for not appointing him. Later, the dentist was included among four finalists for the permanent chair position, but faculty feedback—some of it harshly critical, others very complimentary—factored into the dean’s decision to hire an external candidate. Specifically, faculty were asked to fill out a survey on the finalists, and “some faculty thought very highly of” the dentist, while others wrote that “he was ‘vindictive,’ ‘divisive,’ ‘narcissistic,’” and that he “‘bullies’ faculty and residents.”

Resignation. The dentist resigned after the position was filled. He subsequently filed suit in state court against NYU, alleging hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). NYU removed the case to federal court and was granted summary judgment on the federal claims, with the court declining to hear the state and city claims. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his federal claims to the Second Circuit.

Hostile work environment. Regarding the hostile work environment claim, the court concluded it was time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations for Section 1981 claims. The dentist did not point to any admissible evidence that an act contributing to the hostile work environment occurred within the limitations period, which the court considered fatal to his claim. Since the last actionable conduct occurred before October 6, 2017, and the lawsuit was filed on October 6, 2021, the court held that there was no timely incident contributing to a continuing violation. Mere letters of complaint and NYU’s allegedly insufficient response post-2017 were not enough to revive the claim.

Retaliation. Next, the court evaluated the two retaliation claims. Regarding the interim chair appointment, the court found that the dentist presented direct evidence of retaliation—namely, the dean’s own statement that he would have appointed the dentist but for the OEO complaint. This direct link between protected activity and an adverse employment action precluded summary judgment, making this part of the district court’s ruling erroneous and warranting reversal.

However, the court upheld summary judgment concerning the permanent chair position. It found that NYU provided a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for selecting another candidate: the external hire was a tenured full professor with stronger interpersonal and leadership skills, and faculty feedback painted the dentist as a divisive figure. The dentist had failed to produce sufficient evidence that this rationale was pretextual, the appellate court held, nor did he show that the survey used to assess candidates was retaliatory in nature. Only two of the 77 surveyed faculty were involved in his previous complaints, and their feedback was not shown to be determinative. The court found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether retaliation was the “but-for” cause of NYU’s decision regarding the permanent position, upholding summary judgment on that claim.

The case is No. 24-1169.

Judge: Per curiam.

Attorneys: Michael John Passarella (Olshan Frome Wolosky) for Edgard El Chaar. Susan Deegan Friedfel (Jackson Lewis) for New York University College of Dentistry.

Companies: New York University College of Dentistry

Cases: Retaliation Discrimination RaceDiscrimination PublicEmployees ConnecticutNews NewYorkNews VermontNews