Lynch v. The Department of Education of the City of New York et al

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
24-CV-07795 (DG) (JAM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
Corrine Lynch,
Plaintiff,
-against-
The Department of Education of the City of New
York, et al.,
Defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------X
DIANE GUJARATI, United States District Judge:
On December 26, 2025, Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Marutollo issued a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 37, be
granted in part and denied in part as specified in the R&R and that pro se Plaintiff be granted
leave to amend the Complaint as specified in the R&R. See generally R&R, ECF No. 60.1 More
specifically, the R&R – which construes the Complaint liberally – recommends: that the Court
“deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s as-applied First Amendment Free
Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause claims as well as her Section 1983 failure to
reasonably accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs claim under the First Amendment;”
that the Court “grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff’s (1) facial Free
Exercise Clause and facial Establishment Clause challenges to the DOE Vaccine Mandate, to the
extent they have been raised; (2) Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim; (3) procedural
due process claim; (4) substantive due process claim; (5) ‘stigma plus’ due process claim; (6)
fraud in the inducement claim; (7) claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
1 Familiarity with the procedural history and background of this action is assumed herein.
Case 1:24-cv-07795-DG-JAM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
dealing; (8) New York Education Law §§ 3020 and 3020-a claims; and (9) all claims against
Defendant Rodi;” and that “leave to amend the complaint be granted solely with respect to (1) a
potential First Amendment retaliation claim; and (2) the NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims, to the
extent that such claims are brought within the one-year statute of limitations or have otherwise
been equitably tolled.” See R&R at 45 (bolding omitted).2
On January 9, 2026, Defendants filed objections to the R&R. See generally ECF No. 65
(specifying that Defendants object only to the recommendation that the Court deny Defendants’
motion to dismiss “with respect to (1) Plaintiff’s as-applied First Amendment Free Exercise
Clause and Establishment Clause claims and (2) Plaintiff’s Section 1983 failure to reasonably
accommodate her sincerely held religious beliefs claim under the First Amendment”). On
January 16, 2026, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ objections. See generally ECF No. 66
(requesting that the Court “overrule Defendants’ objections and adopt the R&R in the portions
favorable to Plaintiff, deny Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff’s Free Exercise,
Establishment Clause, and failure-to-accommodate claims (and related due process theories as
addressed in Plaintiff’s objections), and permit discovery to proceed”).
On January 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R. See generally ECF No. 67
(requesting that the Court “[d]ecline to adopt the portions of the R&R that recommend dismissal
of Plaintiff’s claims, adopt the portions of the R&R that correctly find Plaintiff has plausibly
stated as-applied First Amendment Free Exercise and religious accommodation claims, deny
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss as to the above-referenced claims, and in the alternative, to the
2 The R&R also states that “[w]hile the November 10, 2025 letter-motion [ECF No. 57] has not
been referred to [Judge Marutollo], in light of [the Court’s] referral and the instant Report and
Recommendation, [Judge Marutollo] . . . recommends that this motion be denied as moot.”
See R&R at 10 n.8.
Case 1:24-cv-07795-DG-JAM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
extent any claim is dismissed, grant Plaintiff leave to amend pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2)”). On January 27, 2026, Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R.
See generally ECF No. 68 (arguing that the R&R correctly recommends (1) “that Plaintiff has
failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment claim for procedural or substantive due process,” (2)
“that Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead an Equal Protection claim based on religious
discrimination,” and (3) “dismissal of individual defendant Katherine Rodi due to lack of
personal involvement;” that the R&R correctly held (1) “that Plaintiff did not plead a First
Amendment retaliation claim in the Complaint” and (2) “that Plaintiff’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL
claims are time barred;” that the R&R “does not limit Plaintiff’s damages;” and that Plaintiff
should not be granted leave to amend).
* * *
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court has liberally construed Plaintiff’s filings in
this action. And, in light of the parties’ objections to the R&R, the Court has reviewed de novo
the entirety of the R&R. Upon review of the R&R, the record – including the parties’ briefing in
connection with the objections to the R&R – and the applicable law, the Court adopts the R&R’s
recommendations that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 37, be granted in part and denied in part
as specified in the R&R and that Plaintiff be granted leave to amend the Complaint as specified
in the R&R. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 37, is granted in part
and denied in part as specified in the R&R and Plaintiff is granted until March 25, 2026 to file an
Amended Complaint that is consistent with the R&R.3
Although Plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies
3 Because Plaintiff’s letter motion filed at ECF No. 57 lacks some clarity and because Plaintiff’s
subsequent filings cast doubt on whether Plaintiff still seeks relief in connection with that letter
motion, the Court denies without prejudice the letter motion filed at ECF No. 57.
Case 1:24-cv-07795-DG-JAM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good
faith and therefore denies in forma pauperis status for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v.
United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Diane Gujarati 	__
DIANE GUJARATI
United States District Judge
Dated: March 4, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
Case 1:24-cv-07795-DG-JAM Document 70 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>