Bagley v. Yale University (42 F. Supp. 3d 332, 2014)

United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2014-08-26

Citations

Full opinion text

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT

HAIGHT, Senior District Judge:

This is an action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”). Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 is asserted with respect to appended Connecticut statutory and common law claims. The case is before the Court on the motion of the Defendants to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint.

I. INTRODUCTION

The Plaintiff is Constance E. Bagley. She is a professor on the faculty of the Yale School of Management (‘Yale SOM” or “SOM”). In 2008 Professor Bagley and Yale SOM entered into a five-year contract of employment, commencing on July .1, 2008. Bagley brings this action to complain of Yale SOM’s decision not to rehire her for a further term. Her present term on the faculty, extended by circumstances, expires on December 31, 2014.

The Defendants are Yale University (“Yale”), a private degree granting institution in New Haven, Connecticut. Yale SOM is the graduate business school of Yale, which is legally responsible for SOM’s conduct. Defendant Andrew Rae is a professor on the SOM faculty. Defendant Edward Snyder is a professor on the SOM faculty and the Dean of the School. Defendant Andrew Metrick is a professor on the SOM faculty and the Deputy Dean of the school.

All Defendants move [Doc. 28] to dismiss all the claims contained in Plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff opposes that motion. The motion was extensively briefed. The Court heard oral argument on June 25, 2014, and directed supplemental briefing in respect of one issue. That briefing has been submitted. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is ripe for decision. This Ruling decides it.

II. BACKGROUND

A number of the background facts giving rise to Professor Bagley’s complaint would seem to be undisputed or indisputable. But that is not true, I note at the outset, with respect to a threshold factual issue which gave rise to the Court’s direction to counsel for further briefing. That issue is presented by Defendants’ contention that “Plaintiffs first CHRO complaint, filed on March 4, 2013, was hot timely filed,” to which Plaintiff responded that “the filing was timely, and the CHRO itself was incorrect in concluding otherwise.” Order for Further Briefing [Doc. 44] at 1.

“CHRO” is a reference to the State of Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, with which Bagley filed two complaints: the first on March 4, 2013, and the second on December 20, 2013. The timeliness of Bagley’s second charge is not disputed, but Defendants contest the timeliness of the first charge. The resolution of that issue, and the resulting consequences, are considered in Part III.A. infra. ■>

Reverting to the factual background of the case, much of what follows in this Part is drawn principally from a careful reading of the allegations in the “Background Facts” section of Professor Bagley’s Complaint [Doc. 1], which comprises pages 4-27 and ¶¶ 15-122. Care is required because these paragraphs are replete with conclusory and argumentative assertions. This part of the Complaint is vividly written, in the best “That’s telling ’em!” tradition, part pleading, part polemic. At the pleading stage of a case, district judges have received recent cogent instructions about how they are to read such prose. “In addressing the sufficiency of a complaint we accept as true all factual allegations and draw from them all reasonable inferences; but we are not required to credit conclusory allegations or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” Rothstein v. UBS AG, 708 F.3d 82, 94 (2d Cir.2013) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Applying those principles to the complaint at bar, I distill from the cited paragraphs the following facts that presumably are not or could not be disputed.

The relevant facts begin in the year 2007, when Joel Podolny, then Dean of the Yale SOM, invited Constance Bagley to join the Yale SOM faculty. Bagley accepted, and signed an employment contract ■with Yale SOM as a Professor in the Practice of Law and Management for a five-year term, commencing on July 1, 2008 and ending on July 1, 2013. At the time of that appointment, Bagley was an associate professor at the Harvard Business School. She moved with her son from Massachusetts to New Haven, taking up residence in Woodbridge, Connecticut, and began teaching at Yale SOM.

In 2011, the question arose as to Professor Bagley’s reappointment to the Yale SOM faculty. On October 19, 2011, Dean Metrick advised Bagley that a committee chaired by Professor Paul Bracken would review her accomplishments and prepare a report on her case, which would then be voted on by the Yale SOM senior faculty.

The Bracken Committee unanimously recommended that Bagley be reappointed to the faculty. On May 7, 2012, the Bracken Committee’s recommendation was submitted for approval to Yale SOM’s Board of Permanent Officers (“BPO”), which consists of Yale SOM tenured faculty. The BPO met on that date, and during the meeting voted against Bagley’s renewed appointment to an additional five-year term as a Professor in the Practice on the Yale SOM faculty.

On May 24, 2012, Dean Snyder advised Professor Bagley by letter that the BPO had voted against her renewed appointment. While the BPO’s vote was advisory and not binding on Dean Snyder, Snyder advised Bagley that he had decided not to renew Bagley’s contract for another five years. The reason Snyder gave Bagley for the non-renewal of her contract was, in words or substance, that “there were no courses for her to teach.”

Bagley responded on June 19, 2012 by filing an internal complaint of discrimination with Yale. Acting pursuant to the Yale University Faculty Handbook, Bagley requested a “provostial review” of Dean Snyder’s decision not to review her contract. That complaint was addressed to, and came to the attention of, Professor Peter Salovey, then the Provost of the University (Salovey was subsequently elected President of Yale, taking office on July 1, 2013). Bagley’s Complaint stated in part: “The real reason for the nonrenewal of my appointment is gender bias, including sexual stereotyping, in violation of Yale’s policies, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and applicable Connecticut state law.” Doc. 1, ¶ 72. In October 2012, Bagley amended her internal complaint to add a claim of age discrimination.

Provost Salovey responded to Professor Bagley’s internal complaint by appointing a committee designated “the Harte Committee” (named after the SOM professor who chaired it) to investigate and draft a report concerning the Yale SOM decision not to reappoint Bagley. The Harte Committee produced a report dated November 28, 2012 and a revised report dated March 3, 2013 (the “Revised Harte Report”). The Revised Harte Report stated that Bagley’s possible reappointment had been adversely impacted by a “curricular decision about the future of the course.” The report also concluded that the events leading up to Yale SOM’s decision not to reappoint Bagley demonstrated variations in SOM’s announced procedures adverse to Bagley.

On April 4, 2013, Salovey sent Bagley a letter stating his conclusion, based on the Revised Harte Report and input from SOM Deans Snyder and Metrick, that the standards used to review her reappointment were not made sufficiently clear to her, and issues regarding her teaching required further review. Salovey ordered the SOM BPO to review Bagley’s ease “anew,” after a Yale SOM faculty review committee articulated the standards for reappointment of a Professor in the Practice at the School, and explained how they applied in Bagley’s case.

In June 2013, Deputy Dean Metrick advised Bagley that, in accordance with Salovey’s April 4, 2013 decision, a review committee drawn from the Yale SOM faculty would review Bagley’s reappointment decision and articulate the standards that should apply when reviewing Professors in the Practice. That three-member committee was chaired by Edieal J. Pinker, a Yale SOM professor. That additional internal process availed Bagley nothing. The Pinker Committee submitted a report to the BPO. On October 21, 2013, the BPO again voted against renewal of Professor Bagley’s contract. On that day Deputy Dean Metrick advised Bagley of the negative vote. Dean Snyder, in a letter on November 7, 2013, informed Bagley that he had decided to follow the BPO’s recommendation not to renew her appointment.

Professor Bagley’s five-year contract with Yale SOM, extended by these lengthy but ultimately unsuccessful review processes, expires on December 31, 2014.

On March 4, 2013, Bagley filed a complaint with the CHRO. Ex. A to Defendants’ Brief [Doc. 29], Yale University was the only named respondent. The complaint form included a line reciting: “discriminated against in terms and conditions of employment on or about__” Bagley filled in the date of May 7, 2012. The selection of that date was explained by Bagley’s accompanying affidavit, which recited that Dean Snyder “advised me on May 7, 2012” that the “BPO ... had voted against my renewed appointment to an additional 5-year term” as a Yale SOM professor. Doc. 29 at 41 (¶ 8) (parentheses omitted). Required by the form to indicate the manners in which she had been discriminated against, Bagley inserted the phrases “not reappointed” and “denied reappointment,” and checked boxes designating “harassed” and “not hired due to a disability” (without specifying a date). Required by the form to state her belief for the cause of the complained-of discrimination, Bagley checked boxes designating “sex,” “female,” “physical disability,” and “previously opposed discriminatory conduct.”

In a Merits Assessment Review dated July 15, 2013, Ex. B to Brief [Doc. 29], the CHRO dismissed Bagley’s March 4, 2013 claim for the stated reason that:

Complainant was notified of the decision for non-renewal of her contract on May 7, 2012 and her complaint was filed on [M]arch 4, 2013. Complainant had been notified of the alleged act of discrimination, that being the vote for non-renewal of her contract, three hundred and one (301) days prior to the filing of her CHRO complaint. Complainant’s claim is not timely filed as the timeframe [sic] for filing is one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date when complainant knew or should have reasonably known of the alleged act.

Doc. 29, at 51. Bagley protested this dismissal and requested the CHRO to reinstate her complaint. The CHRO denied that request and by letter dated September 30, 2013 gave Bagley a Release of Jurisdiction. That letter concluded with the formal advice that “The Complainant must bring an action in Superior Court within 90 days of the receipt of this release

Bagley filed a second claim with the CHRO on December 23, 2013. The claim form and Bagley’s accompanying affidavit appear collectively as Exhibit C to Defendants’ Main Brief [Doc. 29]. Bagley signified on the claim form that she also wanted the claim to be filed with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Counsel for Bagley described this second filing: “On December 23, 2013, Professor Bagley filed a second complaint with CHRO and the EEOC that encompassed allegations contained in the earlier March 2013 filing and added these additional events, including Dean Snyder’s November 2013 letter denying her reappointment.” Supplemental Brief [Doc. 48] at 8. The “additional events” to which counsel referred were the reviews of Bagley’s case by Yale SOM, as ordered by Salovey; the attendant delays; the BPO’s reiterated vote on October 21, 2013 not to renew Bagley’s contract; and Dean Snyder’s November 7, 2013 letter to Bagley, informing her that he had again decided not to renew her appointment. Whereas Bagley’s first CHRO complaint listed only Yale University as the respondent, her second complaint again named the University, and added Rae, Snyder and Metrick as individual respondents.

I am satisfied by the record that in accordance with available statutory and inter-agency contractual arrangements, Bagley’s filings with the CHRO, the state agency, constituted dual filings with the EEOC, the federal agency. That was the procedure provided for in the Workings-haring Agreement between CHRO and EEOC, described more fully infra.

On December 20, 2013, the same date on which Bagley filed her second complaint with the CHRO, Bagley filed her complaint in this Court.

In her dual filing with the agencies on December 20, 2013, Bagley requested an early right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. That agency complied, issuing to Bagley its Notice of Right to Sue dated May 22, 2014. Ex. 3 to Plaintiffs Brief [Doc. 36]. The CHRO issued a Release of Jurisdiction with respect to Bagley’s second filing by letter dated June 20, 2014.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff resists the motion.

III. DISCUSSION

In their briefs and counsel’s oral submissions at the hearing, Defendants address three principal subjects, which to certain degree constitute arguments in the alternative. Those subjects are: (a) the timeliness and form of Plaintiffs filings with the EEOC and CHRO; (b) whether the Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims; and (c) whether certain of the state law claims are claims upon which relief can be granted. I discuss those subjects in that order.

A. Plaintiff’s Filings with the EEOC and the CHRO

When in the course of human events an individual is discriminated against, during his or her pursuit of certain forms of happiness, the individual’s pain is real, and if he or she proves discrimination occurred, the rule of law furnishes relief for the pain.

When an individual perceives himself or herself as a victim of discrimination, even passionately believes that to be so, the individual’s pain is no less real, but if in fact discrimination did not occur or cannot be proved, the law has no remedy to offer.

In the United States, the federal government and certain states of the Union have enacted statutes which prohibit specified kinds of discrimination, establish administrative agencies for the enforcement of those statutes, and confer jurisdiction on the courts for private rights of action claiming discrimination, upon compliance with the statutory and regulatory scheme. These statutes, agencies and regulations are intended to further public policy in various ways, including providing a remedy for victims of discrimination; deterring discrimination by others; acting as a statute of repose to bar older claims; and giving administrative agencies an initial opportunity to resolve the matter before a claimant sues in court. These are benign objectives. But legal history teaches that legislative and regulatory purposes, however benign, can become fertile grounds for litigation. This case is an example of that reality.

Professor Bagley’s complaint against the Yale defendants invokes federal and Connecticut state statutes which prohibit discrimination. Bagley has filed claims with the federal administrative agency (the EEOC) and the Connecticut agency (the CHRO). Connecticut, in this context, is referred to as a “deferral state.” In describing the interrelation between these two agencies in the processing of a particular claim, I cannot improve upon Judge Nevas’s disquisition in Doe v. Odili Technologies, Inc., No. 3:96-cv-1957, 1997 WL 317316 (D.Conn. May 25,1997):

A deferral state is one which has its own antidiscrimination laws and administrative agency. Connecticut is such a deferral state. In a deferral state, a complaint must first be filed with the state agency to give it an opportunity to resolve the suit. In the initial sixty-day period the state agency has exclusive jurisdiction to process discrimination charges. The state agency retains exclusive jurisdiction unless one of three events occur to trigger EEOC jurisdiction: (1) the sixty-day deferral period expires; (2) the state agency proceedings are “terminated”; or (3) the state agency waives its right to exclusively process the charge. The EEOC does not have subject matter jurisdiction to proceed with its investigation and to issue a right to sue letter until the deferral period expires or the state agency proceedings are otherwise terminated. Thus, if an EEOC charge is subject to deferral and is received by the EEOC, it is held in “suspended animation” until one of the three triggering events occurs to transfer jurisdiction to the EEOC.

1997 WL 317316, at *2 (citations omitted). “As a general rule, a complainant must file a discrimination charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged unlawful employment practice. If a complainant initially institutes proceedings with a state or local agency with authority to grant such relief from the practice alleged, the time limit for filing with the EEOC is extended to 300 days.” E.E.O.C. v. Commercial Office Prods. Co., 486 U.S. 107, 110, 108 S.Ct. 1666, 100 L.Ed.2d 96 (1988) (citations omitted). See also Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (“In a State that has an entity with the authority to grant or seek relief with respect to the alleged unlawful practice, an employee who initially files a grievance with that agency must file the charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the employment practice; in all other States, the charge must be filed within 180 days.”).

The deferral period to which Judge Nev-as referred in Odili is found in Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c), which gives the state or local agency an exclusive opportunity to resolve the complaint and requires the EEOC to defer any action on its part. That provision has an effect upon the filing deadline with the EEOC. “In light of the 60-day deferral period, a complainant must file a charge with the appropriate state or local agency, or have the EEOC refer the charge to that agency, within 240 days of the alleged discriminatory event in order to ensure that it may be filed with the EEOC within the 300-day limit.” Commercial Office Prods. Co., 486 U.S. at 111, 108 S.Ct. 1666. These complications may be ameliorated by the relatively common worksharing agreements entered into between the EEOC and a state agency. “These worksharing agreements typically provide that the state or local agency will process certain categories of charges and that the EEOC will process others, with the state or local agency waiving the 60-day deferral period in the latter instance.” Id. at 112, 108 S.Ct. 1666.

The case for the Defendants at bar is that the combined effect of the federal and state discrimination statutes and regulations, as interpreted by the courts, is to render all Plaintiffs discrimination claims, federal and state, time-barred. Accordingly they must be dismissed; and with them, by extension, all Plaintiffs’ additional state and common law claims, since in Defendants’ submission this Court should not, in the absence of a viable federal claim, exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. These contentions, if sound, would result in dismissal of Plaintiffs complaint in its entirety, which is the relief for which Defendants pray in their present motion.

1. Federal Discrimination Claims

I begin the analysis with the complaint’s federal discrimination claims. There are four of them: Counts One, Three, Five and Six. Each is against Yale University alone. Count One charges Yale with gender discrimination in violation of Title VII. Count Three charges Yale with age discrimination in violation of ADEA. Count Five charges Yale with retaliation in violation of Title VII. Count Six charges Yale with retaliation in violation of the ADEA.

Defendants contend that the 300-day time limit for filing an EEOC complaint is fatal to Bagley’s federal claims. Defendants specify May 7, 2012 as the date of “the conduct that forms the basis of the plaintiffs claim.” Main Brief [Doc. 29] at 12. • That is the date when the Yale SOM BPO voted to recommend to Dean Snyder that Bagley not be reappointed. It is also the date Bagley chose in her first CHRO filing to designate when Yale discriminated against her. Bagley’s first CHRO complaint was filed on March 4, 2013. In Defendants’ view, the 60-day deferral period means that Bagley’s “charge of discrimination was not officially filed with the EEOC” until 60 days later, on May 3, 2013, brief at 12 (emphasis added), a date more than 300 days after the complained-of conduct. Defendants add in a footnote to their brief, at 13 n. 3, that “even if calculated from the date of Dean Snyder’s May 24, 2012 letter [accepting the BPO’s recommendation and notifying Bagley that he would not reappoint her], the plaintiffs May 3, 2013 charge with the EEOC did not occur within 300 days.” (emphasis added). Counsel for Defendants reiterated that contention during oral argument. Mr. Noonan said that Bagley’s first EEOC filing “is not deemed filed until 60 days after the filing with the state agency. So, in any event, I believe they are well past the 300-day limit.” Tr. 9 (emphasis added).

It is important to note that the 60-day deferral period is the only vehicle available to Defendants for positioning Bagley’s first EEOC filing on a date which is past the 300-day limit. If one takes May 7, 2012 as the date when the alleged discrimination occurred, and March 4, 2013 as the date of the EEOC filing (dually with CHRO), the EEOC filing was timely under the 300-day limit. March 3, 2013 was a Sunday. The EEOC’s official publication provides under the caption “Time Limits for Filing a Charge” that “Holidays and weekends are included in the calculation, although if the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, you will have until the next business day.” (emphasis added). Courts considering the question also reach that result by applying the guidelines set forth in Rule 6(a), Fed. R.Civ.P.

Specifically, district courts that have addressed the proper calculation method for timeliness of an EEOC complaint in a federal discrimination action have employed Rule 6(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. See, e.g., Gamas v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., No. Civ. 03-89-PB, 2005 WL 419690, at *2 (D.N.H. Feb. 23, 2005) (“it is reasonable to assume that the drafters of the 300-day limitation period [for an EEOC complaint] had Rule 6(a) in mind when they enacted the limitation period” in Title VII); Davitt v. Open MRI of Allentown, LLC, No. Civ A. 03-5612, 2003 WL 23162429, *4 (E.D.Pa. Oct. 8, 2003) (holding plaintiffs filing of EEOC complaint timely under Rule 6(a) because “Fed.R.Civ.P. 6 applies to time calculations made pursuant to [Title VII] section 2000e[,] et seq. of Title 42”); Bethelmie v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., No. 00 CIV. 3707(FM), 2001 WL 863424, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2001) (in the context of Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), “pursuant to Rule 6(a), Saturdays and Sundays must be included in calculating whether Bethelmie’s ADA claim was timely filed with the EEOC”); Bonebrake v. West Burlington Ind. Sch. Dist., No. 3-99-CV-90209, 2001 WL 901265, *4 (S.D.Iowa Aug. 9, 2001) (“The Court holds that the ADEA is an applicable statute for purposes of Rule 6(a) and therefore the 300 day filing period may not expire on a Sunday.”).

Rule 6(a)(1)(C) explicitly provides that in computing time periods, one must “include the last day of the period, but if the last day is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a)(1)(C) (emphasis added). Courts have therefore found timely an EEOC filing on a Monday where the deadline would otherwise have been Sunday. See, e.g., Bonebrake, 2001 WL 901265, *4 (holding “the 300 day filing period” for filing an EEOC Complaint in an ADEA action “may not expire on a Sunday” so complaint filed on Monday, 301st day, was timely). See also Kane v. Douglas Elliman, Hollyday & Ives, 635 F.2d 141, 142 (2d Cir.1980) (applying Rule 6(a) “in light of the purposes intended to be served by Title VII” and allowing plaintiff the “full span” of days to file Title VII complaint in federal court on Monday, where last day to file would otherwise have been a Sunday).

It is clear, therefore, that if the timeliness of Bagley’s first EEOC complaint turned solely upon whether her March 4, 2013 filing fell within the 300-day limit, the filing was timely. Accordingly, in order for Defendants to succeed on their contention that Bagley’s first EEOC filing was untimely, they must show that for the purpose of calculating timeliness, the dual EEOC filing on March 4, 2013 should be disregarded as a nullity. Defendants must argue that only on May 3, 2013, at the end of the 60-day deferral period, did the statutory scheme confer upon Bagley’s EEOC filing the state of grace of being “officially filed” or “deemed filed”: until then, in any meaningful sense, this EEOC complaint had not been filed at all. Bagley’s initial EEOC filing was untimely, Defendants’ argument concludes, because by the time the 60-day deferral period had passed, the 300-day limit for filing a charge with the EEOC had also run out.

Thus stated, Defendants’ proposition seems almost counter-intuitive. But Defendants appropriately cite the Supreme Court’s decision in Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 100 S.Ct. 2486, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980), in which the Court held 6-3 that the word “filed” in § 706(c) (the 60-day deferral provision) and in § 706(e) (the 300-day limit provision) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(e) and (e), had the same meaning. The consequence, Justice Stevens wrote in his majority opinion, was that § 706(c), in plain terms

prohibited the EEOC from allowing the charge to be filed on the date the letter was received. Although ... it was proper for the EEOC to hold respondent’s complaint in suspended animation, automatically filing it upon termination of the State proceedings, that means that the charge was filed on the 351st day, not the 291st. By that time, however, the 300-day period had run and the filing was therefore untimely.

447 U.S. at 817, 100 S.Ct. 2486 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

This ruling alerted the careful practitioner in a deferral state case to file a discrimination claim with the EEOC within 240 days of the charged conduct, so that if the state or local agency did nothing with the claim during the next 60 days, the claimant would have one day remaining in the 300-day period for his EEOC claim to become “officially filed” and take on a life of its own. That practical consequence of Mohasco particularly irritated Justice Blackmun, who stated in his dissent, joined by Justices Marshall and Brennan:

I believe that the Court’s decision neither is correct as a matter of statutory construction, nor does it dispel the existing decisional conflict, in an acceptable fashion.

The rule the Court adopts today requires a Title VII complainant residing in a deferral State to file a charge of employment discrimination within 240 days of the allegedly unlawful act, in order to be certain that his complaint is timely. Yet the numeral “240” nowhere appears in Title VII.

... [I]t is important to note that the EEOC, the agency charged by Congress with administering Title VII, has always treated as timely a charge filed within the 300-day period specified in § 706(e), without regard to the 60-day deferral period specified in § 706(c).

447 U.S. at 826, 827, 828-29, 100 S.Ct. 2486.

If the majority opinion in Mohasco were the last word on the subject, Defendants would win the argument on this point. For the reasons stated, Bagley is entitled to the conclusion that the filing of her first EEOC complaint on March 4, 2013, occurred within Title VII’s 300-day period. But Mohasco held that an otherwise timely filing does not save an EEOC complaint if the 60-day deferral period kicks in and carries the effective date of the EEOC filing forward in time to the end of those 60 days, a date outside the 300-day period. Mohasco holds that the 60-day deferral period transforms a timely EEOC filing into an untimely one. That is what Yale says occurred in the case at bar.

Yale’s argument fails because the Mohasco majority opinion is not the last word on this subject. Eight years later, the Supreme Court decided E.E.O.C. v. Commercial Office Products, Co., 486 U.S. 107, 108 S.Ct. 1666, 100 L.Ed.2d 96 (1988). Justice Marshall’s majority opinion considered § 706(c)’s 60-day deferral period in the context of a worksharing agreement between the EEOC and state or local agencies. (There was no worksharing agreement in Mohasco). Section 709(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-8(b), authorizes the EEOC to “enter into written agreements” with state and local agencies to promote “effective enforcement” of the Act. In Commercial Office Products the Court noted that pursuant to that congressional authority, “EEOC has entered into worksharing agreements with approximately 81 of 109 authorized state and local agencies.” 486 U.S. at 112, 108 S.Ct. 1666.

The question presented in Commercial Office Products was:

whether a state agency’s waiver of the 60-day deferral period, pursuant to a worksharing agreement with the EEOC, constitutes a “termination” of its proceedings so as to permit the EEOC to deem a charge filed and to begin to process it immediately. This question is of substantial importance because the EEOC has used its statutory authority to enter into worksharing agreements with approximately three-quarters of the 109 state and local agencies authorized to enforce state and local employment discrimination laws.

Id.

The Court answered the question presented in the affirmative. It held:

Because we find that the extended 300-day federal limitations period is applicable to this case and that the CCRD’s [state agency’s] waiver of the 60-day deferral period “terminated” its proceedings within that 300-day limit, we conclude that Leerssen’s claim was timely filed under Title VII.

486 U.S. at 125, 108 S.Ct. 1666.

Justice Marshall’s reasoning for this result applies directly to the case at bar, and I quote it at some length. Rejecting precisely the same argument made by Yale in this case, Justice Marshall said:

The most dramatic result of respondent’s reading of the deferral provisions is the preclusion of any federal relief for an entire class of discrimination claims. All claims filed with the EEOC in worksharing States more than 240 but less than 300 days after the alleged discriminatory event, like Leerssen’s claim in this case, will be rendered untimely because the 60-day deferral period will not expire within the 300-day filing limit. Respondent’s interpretation thus requires the 60-day deferral period— which was passed on behalf of state and local agencies — to render untimely a claim filed within the federal 300-day limit, despite the joint efforts of the EEOC and the state or local agency to avoid that result. As petitioner epigrammatieally observes, a claim like Leerssen’s that is filed with the EEOC within the last 60 days of the federal filing period is “too early until it is too late.”

Id. at 120, 108 S.Ct. 1666. The Court refused to accept “an interpretation of the language of § 706(c) [which] leads to absurd or futile results plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a whole,” id. (citations, internal quotation marks and ellipses omitted), and further held that “other, related sections of Title VII ... reinforce our reading of the legislative history that the 1964 Congress did not intend to preclude the operation of the ivaiver provisions of the worksharing agreements now widely in force.” Id. at 121, 108 S.Ct. 1666 (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court’s rulings and rationale in Commercial Office Products govern the case at bar because, like Colorado in that case, Connecticut in this case entered into a worksharing agreement with the EEOC. The EEOC-Connecticut agreement, in the record as Dbc. 48-3, refers to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities as “the FEPA,” Article I.I., and provides in pertinent part:

II. FILING OF CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION

A. In order to facilitate the assertion of employment rights, the EEOC and the FEPA each designate the other as its agent for the purpose of receiving and drafting charges, including those that are not jurisdictional with the agency that initially receives the charges....

D. Within ten calendar days of receipt, each Agency agrees that it will notify both the Charging Party and the Respondent of the dual-filed nature of each such charge it receives for initial processing and explain the rights and responsibilities of the parties under the applicable Federal, State or Local statutes.

III. DIVISION OF INITIAL CHARGE-PROCESSING RESPONSIBILITIES

.... [T]he primary responsibility for resolving charges between the FEPA and the EEOC will be divided as follows:

A. The EEOC and the FEPA will process all Title VII, ADA, GINA, and ADEA charges that they originally receive.

1. For charges originally received by the EEOC and/or to be initially processed by the EEOC, the FEPA waives its right of exclusive jurisdiction to initially process such charges for a period of 60 days for the purpose of allowing the EEOC to proceed immediately with the processing of such charges before the 61st day.

The last-quoted paragraph is a textbook example of the sort of worksharing agreement waiver provision the Court validated in Commercial Office Products. It follows that when it comes to determining the timeliness of Bagley’s first EEOC complaint against Yale, the 60-day deferral provision has no office to perform. For the reasons previously stated, Bagley’s first federal complaint was timely filed within the 300-day limit,. It asserts claims under Title VII and the ADEA.

The timeliness of Bagley’s first EEOC complaint diminishes the significance of her second administrative complaint, filed on December 20, 2013. As noted, the second complaint (dual in nature, to the EEOC and CHRO) added more recently occurring SOM actions adverse to Bagley: the BPO’s second vote in October 2013 not to renew Bagley’s contract, Dean Snyder’s second letter to Bagley in November 2013 denying her reappointment. The second EEOC complaint also added Rae, Snyder and Metrick as respondent parties. Given the Court’s conclusion that Bagley’s first EEOC filing was timely, Bagley need not rely on her second complaint (which even Defendants agree was timely) as her only entrée to the jurisdiction of this federal district court. The timeliness of the first complaint also disposes of Defendants’ argument, pressed during oral argument, that Bagley’s justiciable claims in this action are limited to new claims asserted for the first time in the second complaint.

The Defendants also contend that Bagley’s second complaint cannot serve as a predicate to her action in this Court because, at the time she filed her complaint in this action, the EEOC had not issued a right to sue letter. That assertion is both accurate and unsurprising, the latter because Bagley filed her complaint in this case on December 20, 2013, the same day she filed her second EEOC complaint. The EEOC issued Bagley a right to sue letter dated May 22, 2014.

Defendants filed their main brief [Doc. 29] in support of the present motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. The EEOC had not yet issued its right to sue letter, a circumstance which Defendants urged as a ground for dismissal. Brief at 13. Bagley filed her opposing brief [Doc. 36] on May 30, 2014. By that time the EEOC’s right to sue letter was at hand, which permitted the argument in Bagley’s brief at 6 that “Defendants’ protestation that ‘at the time this lawsuit was instituted, the EEOC had not issued a right to sue letter’ is of no controlling effect.” Defendants do not accept that proposition. They argued in their reply brief [Doc. 39] at 2 that “the plaintiff has offered no explanation for her failure to obtain a right-to-sue letter prior to instituting the instant action. As such, there is no basis for waiving this requirement, and the defendants’ motion to dismiss should be granted.” During oral argument, counsel for Defendants adhered to that contention during this exchange with the Court:

MR. NOONAN: .... In other words, you can’t file with the EEOC and the district court on the same day.

THE COURT: So what’s the present implication as far as this case is concerned? A right-to-sue letter has been filed now. Has that any effect? Does that make any difference to you?

MR. NOONAN: I don’t think it does, your Honor. It seems to me that if the prerequisites to suit, as the Legnani case says, are filing a timely complaint and getting a right-to-sue letter, then it seems to me that the Plaintiffs need to have done that before filing in the district court.

THE COURT: Isn’t there authority for the proposition that an action, a federal action, which is filed before a right-to-sue letter has been made available, that some courts seem to favor, simply, all right, stay [the] proceedings ... until the right-to-sue letter is obtained and then full speed ahead. Isn’t there some authority for that proposition?

MR. NOONAN: There absolutely is.

THE COURT: You don’t agree with that?

MR. NOONAN: I don’t.

THE COURT: You don’t think I should follow that?

MR. NOONAN: I don’t. I really think that you’ve got a statute that, you know, frankly dictates the way things should occur. And the fact that some courts ... have interpreted the statute in the way that’s inconsistent with the language of the statute shouldn’t bind your Honor.

THE COURT: So, the position then is that the federal claims, even those which are articulated only in the second filing, those claims should be dismissed, because there was not a timely—

MR. NOONAN: Right.

THE COURT: — right-to-sue letter. Is that what it comes down to?

MR. NOONAN: Right.

Tr. 11-13.

Defendants’ position appears to be that Bagley’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies, made manifest at the time of filing this action by the absence of an EEOC right to sue letter, cannot as a matter of law be remedied by the agency’s issuance of the letter after filing of the district court complaint and before any substantive steps in the litigation: a dead hand that cannot be lifted, a state of original sin incapable of redemption. The argument is forcefully stated, but I am unable to accept it. At the hearing Mr. Noonan acknowledged that there was authority for allowing a claimant to cure an initial failure to demonstrate exhaustion of administrative remedies by submitting a post-district court complaint right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Mr. Noonan said he did not agree with those eases. I respect his constitutionally guaranteed right to do so. But I agree with the decisions in question, because they further the salutary policies of the anti-discrimination statutes, without subjecting anyone to unfair prejudice.

In Gooding v. Warner-Lambert Co., 744 F.2d 354 (3d Cir.1984), the Third Circuit, reversing the district court’s refusal to allow plaintiff to amend his complaint for the purpose of alleging the EEOC’s post-filing issuance of a right to sue letter, held that an EEOC right-to-sue letter “is not a ‘jurisdictional’ requirement in the constitutional sense, but rather a statutory requirement designed to give the administrative process an opportunity to proceed before a lawsuit is filed. The requirement was fulfilled by the issuance of the second right-to-sue letter on July 30, 1980.” 744 F.2d at 358 (citations omitted). The Third Circuit repeated that theme in Molthan v. Temple University of Com. System of Higher Education, 778 F.2d 955, 960 (3d Cir.1985) (“[I]n any event, the EEOC had issued a right to sue letter on the retaliation claim by the time the trial began.”). In Tlush v. Manufacturers Resource Center, 315 F.Supp.2d 650, 655 (E.D.Pa.2002), the district court said:

Although plaintiff filed suit before receiving a right-to-sue letter, he received such a letter on September 27, 2001, not only prior to going to trial, but also prior to filing his complaint in the court of common pleas. Tlush’s receipt of a right-to-sue letter at this early stage of the lawsuit is sufficient to cure his failure to obtain such a letter before seeking relief from the courts. Therefore, defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs ADA claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is denied,

(footnotes omitted). At least one district court in this circuit has reached the same result. In Cassells v. University Hospital at Stony Brook, 740 F.Supp. 143, 145 (E.D.N.Y.1990), Judge Nickerson said:

Defendants once more raise the argument that plaintiffs Title VII action is barred because she commenced Cassells II prior to the EEOC’s issuance of a right-to-sue letter on August 27, 1986. The court addressed a similar argument in its decision of December 31, 1986, which held that since there was no resulting prejudice to the defendants, plaintiff could cure her premature filing by alleging the subsequent issuance of a right-to-sue letter in the amended complaint. This she has done. See Amended Complaint, ¶ 10.

Bagley’s brief [Doc. 36] at 6 cites decisions to the same effect from the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Circuits.

The sensible and fair rule to be derived from cases such as these is that a Title VII plaintiff cannot go to trial in a federal court unless the EEOC has issued a right to sue letter, but the initial absence of the letter may be cured by its subsequent issuance, so long as the case is in its early stages and the interim does not cause unfair prejudice to the defendant. This is the rule I will apply in the case at bar.

The Defendants do not cite a Second Circuit case directly addressing this particular question, and my research has not unearthed one. In Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763, 768 (2d Cir.2000), the Second Circuit cited Gooding as illustrating “what the overwhelming majority of other circuits have held: as a general matter, the failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a precondition to bringing a Tile VII claim in federal court, rather than a jurisdictional requirement,” and that “obtaining a right-to-sue letter is a waivable precondition to suit, not a jurisdictional prerequisite.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). The Second Circuit’s opinion in Francis announces its adherence to those rules.

The Francis opinion goes on to hold that the facts and circumstances of the case demonstrated a waiver by the defendant City of any right to complain about the plaintiffs failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his Title VII suit. In the case at bar, the Defendants correctly argue that there is no basis for finding such a waiver. The question may therefore be posed thus: If Bagley, upon receipt of the EEOC’s right to sue letter dated May 22, 2014, had moved to amend her complaint to allege the letter’s issuance, could Defendants have opposed that motion successfully, on the ground that Bagley’s second Title VII claims were forever barred by her filing this action before the issuance of an EEOC letter? I am neither cited to nor have discovered a Supreme Court or Second Circuit case supporting that conclusion, and am thus free to reject it, as I do. This case is at its earliest stages. Defendants do not, and could not, argue that they have been prejudiced at all (let alone unfairly, which is what counts) by Plaintiffs five-month delay (December 2013 to May 2014) in obtaining an EEOC right to sue letter.

Nor is it of any moment that Bagley has not filed a separate motion to amend her complaint to recite the EEOC’s issuance of the right to sue letter. That formality would needlessly consume resources and increase expenses, in a case which has run up significant totals to date and promises to do much more. If a procedural package is thought necessary, in the exercise of my discretion I construe Plaintiffs references in her brief to the EEOC letter as a speaking motion to amend her complaint accordingly, and by this Ruling grant that motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes and holds that the violations of Title VII and the ADEA alleged by Plaintiff in her complaint in this action are in no manner or degree time-barred, nor are they barred or limited by a failure to exhaust" administrative remedies, attendant upon Plaintiffs first and second dual filings of administrative complaints with the EEOC. To the extent that Defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is based upon such perceived deficiencies, it will be denied.

2. State Discrimination Claims

Under the compact between the two agencies, Bagley’s two complaints were filed dually with- the EEOC and the CHRO: the first complaint on March 4, 2013, and the second on December 20, 2013. As noted supra, on the federal side Bagley’s administrative complaint alleged violations of Title VII and the ADEA. On the state side, her complaint alleged violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (“CFEPA”).

The complaint Bagley filed in this Court contains these charges under the CFEPA: Count Two, gender discrimination; Count Four, age discrimination; and Count Seven, retaliation. Ml three counts are against all the Defendants. During the briefing on this motion, Bagley’s counsel represented that “Plaintiff voluntarily dismisses Counts Two and Four against the individual defendants only.” Doc. 36 at 23. For the sake of clarity, I will incorporate that concession in the Order resolving this motion to dismiss.

The CHRO dismissed Bagley’s first administrative complaint on the ground that it was untimely under the CFEPA. The statute provides: “Any complaint filed pursuant to this section must be filed within one hundred and eighty days after the alleged act of discrimination.... ” Conn. GemStat. § 46a-82(f). In her complaint, Bagley specified May 7, 2012 as the date Yale (the sole named respondent) discriminated against her. She filed her first complaint on March 4, 2013, a date well in excess of 180 days, and the CHRO dismissed the complaint in reliance upon that section of the CFEPA.

On this motion, Bagley contends that the CHRO’s dismissal of her first complaint was contrary to governing Connecticut case law. Bagley relies upon Vollemans v. Town of Wallingford, 103 Conn.App. 188, 928 A.2d 586 (2007), aff'd, 289 Conn. 57, 956 A.2d 579 (2008). The plaintiff in Vollemans, alleging discriminatory termination on account of his age, was discharged on January 21, 2003. He filed his CHRO complaint on June 3, 2003. The CHRO concluded, and a Connecticut Superior Court agreed, that plaintiffs claim was barred by the 180-day limitations period because plaintiff received “a definite notice of his termination ... sometime before November 13, 2002.” 103 Conn.App. at 192, 928 A.2d 586. A divided Connecticut Appellate Court reversed. The majority concluded that “the filing period contained in § 46a-82(e) commences upon actual cessation of employment, rather than notice thereof.” Id. at 219, 928 A.2d 586 (footnote omitted). Plaintiffs complaint was timely filed because it occurred within 180 days of the date he left work. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed, saying approvingly that “the thoughtful and comprehensive opinion of the Appellate Court majority properly resolved the issues in this certified appeal,” and that its own discussion “would serve no useful purpose.” 289 Conn. at 61, 956 A.2d 579.

Bagley contends that the CHRO, in measuring the 180-day period for filing the first complaint from the date of Yale SOM’s notice of the BPO action, violated the holding in Vollemans that the filing period “commences upon actual cessation of employment.” Bagley points out that she is still employed by Yale, and will be until December 31, 2014, so her first CHRO filing cannot be untimely as a matter of law. Yale responds that precisely because Bagley has not yet been terminated, “there is no last day of employment which would mark the commencement of the 180 day time period for the filing of a complaint with the CHRO.” Brief [Doc. 47] at 4. In Vollemans the plaintiffs employment had ceased before he filed his CHRO complaint. Yale seems to argue that this factual difference renders the Vollemans decision inapplicable to the ease at bar. Bagley ripostes that “while the Vollemans rule tolls the statute of limitations, it does not prevent an employee from filing a claim before the last day of her employment.” Brief [Doc. 48] at 2. That is what Bagley did; and she argues that her first CHRO filing cannot be disregarded as “too early, as Vollemans permits — though does not require — an employee to file before her last day of employment. This affords the employee, inter alia, the opportunity to participate in a ‘conciliation process’ after receiving notice of an adverse action.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in original).

This interesting debate is not resolved by the wording of the Connecticut Appellate Court in Vollemans. During the court’s lengthy discussion of the proper construction of the CFEPA’s 180-day time limitation, it never said explicitly that an employee could file a valid claim with the CHRO before cessation of employment, or that an employee could not do so. That particular question was not before the Vollemans courts. My research has not found a subsequent case which considers it. But the rationale of the Connecticut Appellate Court indicates that it would not condemn a precessation of employment claim of discrimination as premature or otherwise invalid. The court stressed that Connecticut’s “fair employment practices statutes were enacted to eliminate discrimination in employment. They are remedial and receive a liberal construction.” 103 Conn.App. at 219, 928 A.2d 586. The court rejected a construction of the CFEPA that would start the 180-day clock with the giving of a notice of an employer’s intent to terminate the employee at a future date as “dooming any chance at conciliation,” a deplorable circumstance in view of the court’s stated preference for ensuring that “the parties, and the forces of time, have had the maximum opportunity to resolve the controversy.” Id. at 215, 928 A.2d 586 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Those reflections resonate in the case at bar because Bagley responded to Dean Snyder’s May 2012 notice that he did not intend to renew Bagley’s appointment by requesting internal reviews, including ascending the chain of hierarchy until she reached then-Provost Salovey, hoping to get Yale to change its mind. It is something of a stretch to call these interim events an attempt at “conciliation”; it takes two to do the .tango of conciliation, and Yale was clearly sitting this one out. But I think it unlikely that Connecticut appellate courts, which construe the employment practice statutes liberally and are protective of employees’ rights, would condemn a pre-termination complaint as violative of the statutory scheme.

In any event, Yale cannot shelter behind the CHRO’s rejection of Bagley’s first complaint as “not timely” because it was filed more than 180 days after Yale notified her that her contract would not be renewed the following year. The Vollemans decisions can only be read as a condemnation by Connecticut’s highest courts of the time calculation CHRO used and proclaimed itself to be using. Yale’s seeming effort to turn Vollemans to its favor, because Bagley’s first CHRO filing (as well as her second) preceded the actual cessation of her employment, is not persuasive. I conclude that there is nothing about the timing or other circumstances surrounding Bagley’s first CHRO complaint that has an adverse effect upon the action in this Court or the remedies Bagley can seek to obtain during its course.

As for Bagley’s second CHRO complaint, filed on December 20, 2013, Bagley is still employed by Yale, so this is another pre-cessation filing. The discussion supra on that aspect of the case with respect to the filing of her first complaint would be applicable to this one. But the question does not arise because Yale does not challenge the timeliness of Bagley’s second CHRO filing. The only argument made during the briefing and argument of this motion was that Bagley had not received a Release of Jurisdiction letter from the CHRO. This is the same exhaustion of administrative remedies contention the Defendants made with respect to Bagley’s federal claims. As did the EEOC, the CHRO has now issued to Bagley a Release of Jurisdiction letter for the second CHRO filing (the CHRO had previously given Bagley a comparable letter for her first filing). In Part III.A.1., I concluded that the EEOC’s letter cured any deficiencies with respect to Bagley’s federal discrimination claims. I apply the same reasoning, and reach the same conclusion, with respect to the CHRO’s letter and Bagley’s state discrimination claims.

To conclude on this aspect of the case: Plaintiffs right to assert discrimination claims and pursue remedies in this action are not barred or diminished in any manner or respect by the timing or other circumstances attendant upon her filing of administrative complaints with the EEOC and the CHRO.

B. Supplemental Jurisdiction over the State Law Claims

Following the complaint’s direct claims of discrimination, federal and state, there are a number of state common law or statute-derived claims which may be summarized as follows (giving the nature of the claim and the Defendant against whom it is asserted):

Count Eight: breach of contract Yale

Count-Nine: breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing Yale

Count Ten: promissory estoppel Yale

Count Eleven: negligent/innocent misrepresentation Yale

Count Twelve: tortious interference with advantageous and/or contractual relations Rae

Count Thirteen: tortious interference with advantageous and/or contractual relations Snyder

Count Fourteen: tortious interference with advantageous and/or contractual relations Metrick

Count Fifteen: aiding and abetting discrimination under Connecticut FEPA Snyder

Count Sixteen: aiding and abetting discrimination under Connecticut FEPA Metrick

Count Seventeen: aiding and abetting discrimination under Connecticut FEPA Rae

Count Eighteen: defamation Rae

The present motion reveals the Defendants’ preference for a state court forum over this federal one. They make two arguments. First, because Bagley has no viable federal claim, this federal court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. Second, even if the complaint alleges a viable federal claim, the Court should nonetheless decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims. The governing statute is 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

The first question does not arise because I have concluded that, at this pleading stage, Bagley’s federal claims under Title VII and the ADEA will not be dismissed. After discovery is completed, those claims may be subject to a motion for summary judgment in Defendants’ favor. That is for the future. There will be time then to consider what disposition should be made of Plaintiffs state law claims if her federal claims are dismissed at that later stage of the litigation.

Defendants’ second argument assumes arguendo that Bagley’s federal claims survive for a plenary trial on their merits. Whether this Court should exercise jurisdiction over the state law claims as well depends upon the answers to two questions posed by 28 U.S.C. § 1367: (1) Does supplemental jurisdiction exist over the state law claims pursuant to § 1367(a)(2) If supplemental jurisdiction exists under § 1367(a), should this Court decline to exercise such jurisdiction on the' basis of the factors listed in § 1367(c)? The second question arises because “The fact that the district court has the power to hear these supplemental claims does not mean, of course, that it must do so. Instead, it may decline to exercise its power based on the factors laid out in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). This decision is left to the exercise of the district court’s discretion.” Briarpatch Ltd., L.P. v. Phoenix Pictures, Inc., 373 F.3d 296, 308 (2d Cir.2004). I consider these two questions in order.

1. The Existence of Supplemental Jurisdiction

The existence of this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction over Bagley’s state law claims depends upon § 1367(a), which provides in pertinent part that

in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

In Valencia ex rel. Franco v. Lee, 316 F.3d 299, 305 (2d Cir.2003), the Second Circuit noted that “The concept of supplemental jurisdiction, first codified in 28 U.S.C. . § 1367 in 1990, has its origins in the judicial doctrine of pendent jurisdiction, discussed by the United States Supreme Court in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725-29, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966).” Under Gibbs, “a federal court has jurisdiction over an entire action, including state-law claims, whenever the federal-law claims and state law claims in the case ‘derive from a common nucleus of operative fact’ and are ‘such that [a plaintiff] would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding.’ ” Valencia, 316 F.3d at 305 (citing and quoting Gibbs, 383 U.S. at 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130). District courts apply the “common nucleus of operative fact” test in determining whether supplemental jurisdiction exists in a given case. See, e.g., Morris v. Yale Univ. Sch. of Med., No. 05CV848 (JBA), 2006 WL 908155. at *3 (D.Conn. April 4, 2006). In Briarpatch, 373 F.3d at 308, the Second Circuit said of the Article III constitutional concept: “A state law claim forms part of the same controversy if it and the federal claim derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. That is so even if the state law claim is asserted against a party different from the one named in the federal claim.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

Notwithstanding Defendants’ contentions to the contrary, I conclude without difficulty that Professor Bagley’s state law claims derive from the same “nucleus of operative fact” as her federal Title VII and ADEA claims. All of Bagley’s claims arise out of Yale’s decision not to renew her contract of employment and reappoint her to the SOM faculty. That refusal to renew and reappoint is the Alpha and Omega of this case and all its ramifications: a reality revealed by revisiting the state law claims, and Bagley’s contentions with respect to them:

Breach of contract. What contract? The express written five-year employment contract between Yale and Bagley and oral representations with respect thereto.

Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Where is the covenant found? In the express and oral contracts of employment between Yale and Bagley.

Promissory estoppel. Who is estopped from doing what? Yale is estopped from changing the standards for reappointment that appeared in the employment contract with Bagley.

Negligent/innocent misrepresentation. Misrepresentation by whom about what? Yale misrepresented to Bagley, in her express employment contract and orally, that Bagley’s reappointment after the five-year term would be performance-based.

Tortious interference with advantageous and/or contractual relations. Interference by whom, and with what? Interference by the individual defendants (Rae, Snyder and Metrick) with Bagley’s “relationship with Yale” (e.g., Complaint, ¶ 200), an obvious refe