Direct Evidence of Retaliation Displaces Burden-Shifting under §1981 & Time-Barred Hostile Work Environment Claims: El Chaar v. NYU College of Dentistry

Introduction

In El Chaar v. NYU College of Dentistry (2d Cir. Apr. 2, 2025), the Second Circuit confronted two recurring issues in employment-discrimination litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. First, the court reaffirmed that hostile work environment claims accrue only when “part of the same unlawful practice” occurs within the statutory limitations period. Second, it held that an employer’s direct admission of retaliatory motive negates the need for McDonnell Douglas–style burden-shifting and establishes a genuine issue of material fact. Plaintiff Dr. Edgard El Chaar, a Lebanese immigrant and longtime part-time then full-time periodontics faculty member at NYU, alleged racial harassment and retaliation after formal complaints to NYU’s Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). The district court granted summary judgment to NYU on all federal claims; on appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part, carving out a novel precedent on direct evidence in retaliation claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The panel held (1) El Chaar’s hostile work environment claim under § 1981 was time-barred because no discriminatory act falling within the four-year statute of limitations postdated October 6, 2017; (2) his retaliation claim based on being passed over for the interim Department Chair position survived summary judgment because NYU’s decisionmaker explicitly admitted “we can’t appoint you because of your complaint to OEO,” which constitutes direct evidence requiring denial of summary judgment; and (3) his claim that NYU retaliated by choosing an external permanent Chair failed because, even assuming a prima facie case, NYU proffered and supported a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason—preferring a tenured full professor with stronger consensus-building credentials—without any bona fide dispute of pretext.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

National R. R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002): Established that hostile work environment claims require at least one act within the limitations period if part of the “same discriminatory pattern or practice.”
Byrne v. Rutledge, 623 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2010): Clarified that summary judgment is assessed by viewing evidence in the non-movant’s favor.
Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712 (2d Cir. 2010): Held that mere failure to investigate a discrimination complaint does not constitute a hostile work environment without alteration of employment terms.
Bellamy v. City of New York, 914 F.3d 727 (2d Cir. 2019): Confirmed that a plaintiff's own testimony, if direct and credible, can defeat summary judgment.
Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015): Reviewed the McDonnell Douglas framework for retaliation claims based on circumstantial evidence.
Banks v. General Motors, LLC, 81 F.4th 242 (2d Cir. 2023): Reiterated that § 1981 retaliation requires but-for causation.
Zann Kwan v. Andalex Grp. LLC, 737 F.3d 834 (2d Cir. 2013): Described the burden-shifting steps once a prima facie case of retaliation is made out.
King v. Aramark Servs. Inc., 96 F.4th 546 (2d Cir. 2024): Explained that complaints falling outside the limitations period must nonetheless be tied to a timely act to sustain a hostile work environment claim.

Legal Reasoning

Statute of Limitations & Continuing Violation: The court applied Morgan’s “continuing violation” exception narrowly. Because El Chaar failed to identify any discriminatory incidents post-October 6, 2017, his hostile environment claim accrued outside the four-year window and was time-barred.

Direct Evidence in Retaliation: Relying on Bellamy, the panel held that Bertolami’s admission—“we can’t appoint you because of your complaint to OEO”—constitutes direct evidence of retaliatory intent. Thus, NYU could not invoke the McDonnell Douglas framework; instead, summary judgment was improper because the employer’s own words create a genuine dispute.

But-For Causation for Permanent Chair: Even assuming circumstantial proof, NYU met its burden by showing that it chose a tenured full professor with recognized interpersonal and leadership strengths. El Chaar pointed to no evidence that this legitimate rationale was pretextual; his speculation that interim appointment would have improved his permanent candidacy was insufficient.

Impact

El Chaar v. NYU sets two key precedents:

Employers’ direct admissions of retaliatory motive will defeat summary judgment, bypassing McDonnell Douglas. Plaintiffs should aggressively seek depositions or written admissions to secure direct evidence.
Hostile work environment claims under § 1981 must rest on discrete acts—mere ongoing hostility or inadequate investigations are insufficient unless linked to timely discriminatory conduct.

Practitioners can expect defendants to focus on establishing unequivocal nonretaliatory reasons and to challenge plaintiffs’ ability to tie pre-limitations harassment to conduct within the window.

Complex Concepts Simplified

§ 1981 Claims: Protects the right to make and enforce contracts free from racial discrimination, including employment relationships.
Hostile Work Environment: Occurs when discriminatory conduct is severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive atmosphere; claims require acts within four years under Morgan’s continuing-violation rule.
Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct evidence openly shows intent (e.g., an employer’s statement). Circumstantial evidence requires inference (e.g., timing, patterns).
McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting: A three-step framework for circumstantial cases: (1) plaintiff’s prima facie case; (2) employer’s legitimate reason; (3) plaintiff shows pretext.
But-For Causation: Plaintiff’s protected activity must be an indispensable cause of the adverse action, not merely a motivating factor.
Summary Judgment: Court grants judgment without trial only if no genuine dispute exists on any fact material to the outcome.

Conclusion

El Chaar v. NYU College of Dentistry finely calibrates two doctrines in § 1981 jurisprudence. First, it underscores that hostile work environment claims hinge on timely acts, not residual hostility or procedural failings. Second, it accords plaintiffs a powerful tool: a defendant’s own admission of retaliatory intent bars summary judgment, emphasizing that an employer’s candid deposition testimony can decide a case. Going forward, litigants will weigh the strategic value of securing admissions, and employers will strive to maintain contemporaneous, documented nonretaliatory rationales for adverse actions.