NEW YORK โ A federal magistrate judge has recommended that a lawsuit brought on behalf of Dr. Leah Garrett, chair of Jewish Studies at Hunter College, survive a motion to dismiss, clearing the way for discovery into allegations that the City University of New York tolerated pervasive antisemitic harassment on campus.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger issued a report and recommendation concluding that Garrett plausibly alleged a pattern of targeted harassment and institutional inaction sufficient to state a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The finding means Garrettโs claims will move forward rather than be dismissed at the pleading stage.
The suit was filed in December 2024 by The Lawfare Project with co-counsel Alston & Bird LLP. The complaint alleges that, after the October 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel, Hunter College experienced a surge of antisemitic protests, vandalism, and intimidation that the university failed to address. The complaint details incidents that include threatening chants, hateful imagery, and vandalism directed at Jewish students and faculty.
The Department of Justice has intervened indirectly in the case through a Statement of Interest supporting the principle that public universities are not immune from liability when targeted harassment creates a hostile environment. The Lawfare Project said the DOJโs filing rejected CUNYโs contention that the First Amendment barred Garrettโs civil rights claims.
Ziporah Reich, director of litigation at The Lawfare Project, said the courtโs recommendation is significant for Jewish faculty and students. Reich said targeted, threatening conduct loses First Amendment protection when it crosses the line into harassment and disruption, and that the decision underscores the applicability of Title VII protections to Jews on campus.
According to the complaint and supporting filings, the alleged campus environment forced Garrett and other Jewish faculty to alter their daily routines out of fear. The filing describes instances in which Jewish professors removed their names from office doors, limited in-person programming, and, on one occasion, saw swastikas drawn over imagery of kidnapped Israeli hostages. The complaint asserts that Hunter administrators did not take timely steps to stop or remediate these incidents.
CUNY sought dismissal because much of the conduct at issue was protected speech and therefore not actionable. Magistrate Lehrburgerโs report rejected that argument at the pleading stage, finding Garrettโs allegations sufficiently specific to permit discovery into whether the universityโs response, or lack of one, amounted to actionable discrimination and a hostile work environment. The magistrateโs recommendation does not resolve the merits; it permits the case to proceed.
Legal analysts note the case raises core questions about how public universities should respond when campus speech crosses into targeted harassment. Commentators have emphasized the tension between First Amendment protections and statutory workplace protections that bar discrimination and harassment based on religion or other protected characteristics.
Hunter College has said it does not comment on pending litigation but has publicly stated that it does not tolerate antisemitism or hate of any kind and is committed to campus safety. The Lawfare Project and Garrettโs counsel say they will pursue discovery to document alleged failures by CUNY and to seek appropriate remedies.
The next steps in the litigation include the district judgeโs review of the magistrate judgeโs report and recommendation, and, if adopted, a discovery phase in which both parties can develop the evidentiary record. If discovery proceeds, the case could disclose further details about campus responses to antisemitic incidents that followed October 7, 2023.
This article is based on verified information from Bloomberg Law, The Lawfare Project, PACER (court filings), TheJ, and Ynet.