CENTRAL ISLIP, NY – A federal judge has dismissed several core discrimination claims brought by a Long Island teacher against the Valley Stream Central High School District, finding parts of the suit were time-barred or legally insufficient—but allowing others to proceed.
Shelly Fisher, a former teacher at the district, sued the school system and three of its administrators—Ed Curran, Nakeisha Smith, and Bret Strauss—alleging years of sex-based and disability discrimination, retaliation, and violations of both federal and state law. But in a ruling handed down Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury dismissed Fisher’s claims under Title VII for gender discrimination, citing a missed deadline in filing her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge.
Title VII requires employees to file a charge within 300 days of an alleged discriminatory act. Fisher filed an informal EEOC inquiry in December 2021 and a formal charge in August 2022. The court ruled that any alleged conduct occurring before February 2022 could not form the basis of a federal Title VII claim, and that her complaint failed to plausibly plead disparate treatment discrimination for conduct that occurred afterward.
The judge also partially dismissed other federal claims but allowed Fisher to proceed on several state and constitutional claims, including:
- Hostile work environment and discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), which remains applicable to both the school district and the individual administrators;
- Retaliation claims under both Title VII and NYSHRL, to the extent they are based on timely alleged acts;
- Claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which include allegations of denial of accommodation and retaliation.
In addition, the court ruled that Fisher’s Monell claim under Section 1983 could proceed. She alleges that the school district maintained a pattern or practice of condoning sex-based discrimination and hostile conduct in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Fisher’s lawsuit paints a picture of escalating harassment and institutional indifference, including claims of being targeted after disclosing a disability and experiencing retaliation after complaining about discrimination. The court did not rule on the truth of those allegations but determined that certain legal claims were insufficient as filed or procedurally blocked.
Judge Choudhury’s order allows Fisher to pursue state-level claims and some federal causes of action as the case now moves into the next phase of litigation.