In Fortmann v. St. John’s University, No. 24-CV-5494 (NRM) (LKE), 2026 WL 2927762 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2026), the court, inter alia, held that plaintiff sufficiently alleged retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
As to Title VII, the court explained:
Cevher complained about Sadoqi’s “bullying” and “threatening” behavior to HR on March 21, 2023; she also alleges that Sadoqi’s behavior was in retaliation for rejecting his sexual advances and that her HR complaint was ignored, “empower[ing Sadoqi] to continue the sexual harassment.” Id. ¶¶ 472–75. She further became “reluctant to go to HR, because [Sadoqi] regularly bragged to her that going to HR was futile.” Id. ¶ 476.
Cevher also reported Sadoqi’s sexual harassment to the Department of Public Safety in September 2023, and an HR complaint was subsequently filed on her behalf. Id. ¶¶ 486–87. She followed up on this HR report on September 25, 2023, and on October 17, 2023, she further complained that Sadoqi had “been sexually harassing her since 2018.” Id. ¶¶ 488–89, 494–95. Cevher formally complained to SJU on October 24, 2023, requesting a No Contact Order. Id. ¶ 496. On November 8, 2023, she also complained about Sadoqi hiring a male professor who allegedly made sexist and inappropriate comments about women, and on November 13, 2023, she complained again, in writing, about Sadoqi’s sexual harassment. See id. ¶¶ 499–05, 508–09.
These facts, taken together, sufficiently plead a claim for Title VII retaliation. Cevher alleged that “[s] pending all her funds, worth more than $50,000 within ninemonths meant she had to use degraded chemicals which would give her no results.” Id. ¶ 481. Thus, SJU took adverse employment actions that undermined her research and resulted in her eventual termination. She did not complain about Sadoqi’s “bullying” behavior in a vacuum, as SJU suggests. See SJU’s Mot. to Dismiss at 37 (insisting that “there is no allegation that [Cevher’s Spring 2023 HR] letters included any reports of Sadoqi having harassed or discriminated against her based on her sex”). For she has clearly alleged that HR’s inaction in the wake of her complaint only emboldened Sadoqi to continue his sexual harassment, and that he continued to engage in bullying behavior in retaliation for rejecting his sexual advances. See id. ¶ 472.
Moreover, there is enough temporal proximity between her March 2023 complaint and the limits placed on her research funds in July 2023. See, e.g., Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 110 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Though this Court has not drawn a bright line defining, for the purposes of a prima facie case, the outer limits beyond which a temporal relationship is too attenuated to establish causation, we have previously held that five months is not too long to find the causal relationship.”).
SJU is also mistaken in arguing that there is a lack of temporal proximity between Cevher’s September 2023 report to the Department of Public Safety and the denial of her reappointment in February 2024. See SJU’s Mot. to Dismiss at 27. Said report was followed by HR complaints in October and November 2023 about Sadoqi’s sexually discriminatory behavior. See Compl. ¶¶ 496, 499. There is no dispute that SJU was aware of Cevher’s complaints, and her October and November 2023 complaints are temporally proximate to her termination, so as to support an inference of causation. Thus, SJU’s motion to dismiss is denied with respect to Cevher’s Title VII retaliation claims.
Having determined that plaintiff stated a claim under Title VII, it likewise concluded that she pleaded retaliation under Title IX, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL.