Khan v. Mohawk Valley Community College

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MAIMUN KHAN,
Plaintiff,
-against- 	6:25-CV-211 (LEK/ML)
MOHAWK VALLEY COMMUNITY
COLLEGE,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
I. 	INTRODUCTION
On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff Maimun Khan commenced this action against Defendant
Mohawk Valley Community College (“Mohawk”), alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the New York State Human Rights
Law (“NYSHRL”), New York Executive Law § 296(7). Dkt. No. 1 (“Complaint”). On April 30,
2025, Mohawk answered the Complaint, Dkt. No. 5, and later moved to dismiss only on
Plaintiff’s state-law claim for, inter alia, failing to meet New York State’s notice of claim (NOC)
requirement. Dkt. No. 11 (“Motion”). Plaintiff filed a response, Dkt. No. 15 (“Response”), and
Defendant replied, Dkt. No. 16 (“Reply”).
For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is granted.
II. 	BACKGROUND
The factual summary of this action is taken from the Complaint and the exhibit attached
to it.
In 2000, Mohawk employed Plaintiff as a Counselor subject to an annual review. See
Compl. ¶ 13. She continued in this capacity until 2006 where Mohawk awarded her a “career
Case 6:25-cv-00211-LEK-ML Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 1 of 6

2
appointment” for the role, which Plaintiff describes as “the equivalent of tenure for non-faculty
employees.” Id. ¶ 14. In March 2012, Plaintiff was deemed “ineligible for the position” after
Defendant changed the requirements for her role, id. ¶ 15, and Plaintiff was appointed to a new
role which required that she lose her “tenure,” id. ¶¶ 16, 17. The position was ultimately
eliminated in May 2015, id. ¶ 18, and Plaintiff was rehired as a “Completion Coach” until her
employment ended in August 2018. Id. ¶¶ 19, 36.
In early 2018, Plaintiff discussed her goals for the upcoming academic year with her
supervisor during Plaintiff’s annual review. Id. ¶ 29. Plaintiff’s plans were met with approval and
was given no reason to believe Defendant would terminate her appointment for the upcoming
school year either before, during, or after the meeting. Id. Plaintiff’s review “included a
substantial amount of praise for . . . her performance, and . . . contributions,” and where
improvements were needed, “they were primarily related to the anticipated challenges associated
with her assignment to the General Studies major.” Id. ¶ 30.
On April 11, 2018, Mohawk was informed that the EEOC would interview Plaintiff in
relation to “gender discrimination complaints filed against Defendant” and her supervisor. Id. ¶¶
32. Plaintiff, who herself “was subjected to discrimination and [a] hostile work environment on
the basis of her gender” decided to provide testimony that supported those allegations. Id. ¶¶ 34,
35.
On or around May 10, 2018, Plaintiff was notified that Mohawk would not renew her role
for the upcoming school year. Id. ¶ 36. She was also told not to return to work “effective
immediately,” but “would be considered employed and paid through . . . August 31, 2018.” Id.
Plaintiff had, until that point, “received accolades, repeated promotions in level and pay
increases, and appointments to various additional committees and duties due to her performance
Case 6:25-cv-00211-LEK-ML Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 2 of 6

3
and commitment to the [Mohawk] community.” Id. ¶ 37. Defendant’s “retaliation for
participating in the EEOC investigation” resulted in Plaintiff losing time towards her retirement
plan, which would have given her “significantly greater financial security when she was ready to
retire.” Id. ¶ 38.
Plaintiff brings two claims against Mohawk: 1) a retaliation claim under Title VII; and 2)
a retaliation claim under the NYSHRL. Id. ¶¶ 39–59.
Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, 1) a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated her rights
under Title VII and the NYSHRL; and 2) damages. See Compl. at 9.
III. 	DISCUSSION
Given that Defendant has only moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim, the Court
will focus its analysis on New York State law at this stage of the proceedings. Mot. at 1–7.
Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim on two bases: 1) Plaintiff failed to timely
serve a NOC on Oneida County as required by County Law § 52; and 2) Plaintiff’s state-law
claim is barred by the NYSHRL’s statute of limitations. Id.
Plaintiff alleges Mohawk retaliated against her in violation of the NYSHRL. Compl ¶¶
48–59. Because the claim is brought under New York law, this Court must determine whether
New York's NOC requirements apply as well as whether they have been met. See Hardy v. New
York City Health & Hosp. Corp., 164 F.3d 789, 793 (2d Cir. 1999) (explaining “the general rule
that in a federal court, state [NOC] statutes apply to state-law claims”) (citing Felder v. Casey,
487 U.S. 131, 151 (1988)). Moreover, New York counties that act as local sponsors to
community colleges are required to indemnify the College's trustees, officers, and employees.
N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 6301, 6302, 6308.
Case 6:25-cv-00211-LEK-ML Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Here, “Oneida County is the local sponsor of [Mohawk].” Carpenter v. Mohawk Valley
Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-1268, 2022 WL 4482738, at *1 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 27, 2022) (internal
quotation marks removed). Thus, “[w]here a claim is against an employee that a county is
obligated to indemnify, or against a community college of which the county is a local sponsor,
County Law § 52 governs the presentation of the claims.” Carpenter, 2023 WL 5289439, at *5
(collecting cases).
Section 52 of the New York County Law provides, in pertinent part:
Any claim or notice of claim against a county for damage, injury or death, or for invasion
of personal or property rights, of every name and nature . . . and any other claim for
damages arising at law or in equity, alleged to have been caused or sustained in whole or
in part or because of any misfeasance, omission of duty, negligence or wrongful act on
the part of the county, its officers, agents, servants or employees, must be made and
served in accordance with section fifty-e of the general municipal law.
N.Y. County Law § 52. Section 50-e of the General Municipal Law further provides that “[i]n
any case founded upon tort where a notice of claim is required by law as a condition precedent to
the commencement of an action . . . the notice of claim shall . . . be served . . . within ninety days
after the claim arises.” N.Y. General Municipal Law § 50-e(1)(a). Together, these statutes
require that any claim for damage, injury, or death against a county must be the subject of a
notice served upon the county within ninety days after the claim develops. See Carpenter v.
Mohawk Valley Cmty. Coll., No. 18-CV-1268, 2023 WL 5289439, at *5 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 17,
2023); Henneberger v. Cnty. of Nassau, 465 F. Supp. 2d 176, 198, 198 n.11 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)
(collecting cases).
“It is well settled that compliance with the [NOC] requirement is a condition precedent to
commencement of an action against [a] municipality and the burden is on the plaintiff to plead
and prove compliance with the [NOC] requirement.” Friel v. Cty. of Nassau, 947 F. Supp. 2d
239, 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2013); P.J. Panzeca, Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 6, 323
Case 6:25-cv-00211-LEK-ML Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 4 of 6

5
N.Y.S.2d 978, 272 N.E.2d 488 (1971). “This requirement is mandatory in [f]ederal [c]ourt and
failure to comply results in dismissal of claims.” Eberle v. Town of Southampton, 985 F. Supp.
2d 344, 348 (E.D.N.Y. 2013).
Plaintiff does not appear to have served a NOC on Oneida County. See generally Compl.
In fact, the Complaint alleges that “[n]o conditions precedent are required before filing claims
under the New York State.” Id. ¶ 9. But that is clearly incorrect. See Carpenter, 2023 WL
5289439, at *5 (collecting cases); Friel, 947 F. Supp. 2d at 247; Cody v. Cnty. of Nassau, 577 F.
Supp. 2d 623, 646 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), aff'd, 345 F. App’x 717 (2d Cir. 2009). And as Defendant
correctly notes, Plaintiff’s Response seems to acknowledge the NOC deficiency. Compare Reply
at 1–2 with Resp. 5–9. Instead, absent supporting case law, Plaintiff avers that “Defendant’s
motion predicated on a purported absence of notice of claim is premature.” Resp. at 8. The Court
thinks otherwise. The NOC is a jurisdictional requirement and without pleadings that show it has
been filed in the instant action, the Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim. See
Washington v. Borough of Manhattan Cmty. Coll., No. 16-CV-6168, 2016 WL 7410717, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2016).1
Accordingly, Mohawk’s Motion is granted and Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim is dismissed.
In doing so, the Court does not reach the parties’ arguments regarding the statute of limitations
and expresses no opinion on the merits of Plaintiff's NYSHRL retaliation claim, nor its
likelihood of success should the Oneida County Supreme Court decide to accept Plaintiff’s late
NOC.
1 The Court observes that Plaintiff has filed a late NOC request in Oneida County Supreme
Court. Resp. at 7. After dismissal, Plaintiff is free to move to amend her pleadings assuming
“[the NOC] request has been granted and such a notice has been filed.” Washington, 2016 WL
7410717, at *2.
Case 6:25-cv-00211-LEK-ML Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 5 of 6

6
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED, that Defendant’s partial-motion to dismiss, Dkt. No. 11, is GRANTED; and
it is further
ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s NYSHRL claim against Mohawk Valley Community
College is DISMISSED without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Memorandum-Decision and Order on all
parties in accordance with the Local Rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	January 27, 2026
Albany, New York
LAWRENCE E. KAHN
United States District Judge
Case 6:25-cv-00211-LEK-ML Document 24 Filed 01/27/26 Page 6 of 6