Federal Court Allows Landmark Antisemitism Suit Against CUNY to Proceed, Marking Major Test for University Accountability

By: Fern Sidman

In a ruling that could have sweeping implications for higher education and civil rights enforcement, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on Friday denied the City University of New York’s (CUNY) motion to dismiss a federal lawsuit alleging systemic antisemitism and administrative inaction at Hunter College. The suit was filed on behalf of Dr. Leah Garrett, Chair of the Jewish Studies Department, by The Lawfare Project in partnership with Alston & Bird LLP, and accuses the university of failing to protect Jewish faculty and students from a pattern of escalating harassment and hostility that intensified after the October 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel.

The decision, rendered in a 45-page Report and Recommendation by U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger, rejected CUNY’s effort to dismiss the case, finding that Dr. Garrett had “plausibly alleged” violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal statute prohibiting workplace discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin. Judge Lehrburger concluded that the facts, as presented, depict a “persistent, pervasive pattern of antisemitic harassment” severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment under federal law.

“Dr. Garrett’s allegations — from antisemitic vandalism to credible threats and differential treatment — describe conduct that, if proven true, falls squarely within Title VII’s protections,” the court noted. “CUNY’s failure to take meaningful corrective action, despite repeated notice, raises a plausible inference of deliberate indifference.”

This ruling allows the case to move into the discovery phase, where CUNY administrators and faculty will be compelled to produce internal records, communications, and policy documents related to their handling of antisemitic incidents. It represents one of the first major federal cases to test how far universities’ legal obligations extend to addressing campus antisemitism amid a post–October 7 surge in hate incidents.

The complaint paints a chilling portrait of life for Jewish academics and students at Hunter College following the Hamas attacks. According to court filings, the environment for Jews on campus rapidly deteriorated as antisemitic graffiti, hate symbols, and verbal intimidation spread across the university’s hallways, classrooms, and digital spaces.

In one particularly disturbing detail, the lawsuit describes swastikas scrawled on walls, threats of violence directed at Jewish faculty, and mobs chanting anti-Israel slogans within sight of the Jewish Studies Department offices. Dr. Garrett allegedly pleaded with university administrators to increase security and issue public condemnations of the hate speech, but received no substantive response.

Instead, the complaint alleges, CUNY’s leadership minimized or ignored the threats, allowing what Dr. Garrett called an “atmosphere of normalized hate” to flourish. The harassment became so severe that she reportedly canceled classes, concealed her identity in public spaces, and — along with other Jewish professors — removed her name from office doors and online directories out of fear for personal safety.

The lawsuit also highlights striking examples of institutional disparity in religious treatment, including the administration’s alleged decision to block a Hanukkah menorah-lighting ceremony — a long-standing Hunter College tradition — while permitting a large-scale Ramadan celebration just months later. This selective enforcement of religious observances, the complaint argues, reflects intentional discrimination against Jewish students and faculty.

“When the university refused to allow a menorah lighting, citing concerns over ‘security and sensitivity,’ but then hosted a campus-wide Ramadan festival, it sent an unmistakable message that Jewish identity was unwelcome,” said one senior faculty member familiar with the case.

Judge Lehrburger’s findings call attention to a growing judicial recognition of antisemitism as a protected-class issue under federal employment and education law — particularly in cases where universities have been accused of “deliberate indifference” to harassment.

In his analysis, Lehrburger wrote that the allegations against CUNY “cannot be dismissed as isolated incidents or mere campus politics.” Rather, he found, they form part of an alleged systemic pattern of hostility and administrative neglect.

“The court cannot disregard claims that Dr. Garrett’s complaints were met with silence or retaliation, nor that Jewish faculty were subjected to differential treatment in the exercise of religious expression,” Lehrburger wrote.

Legal analysts say the ruling is significant because it signals that Title VII protections apply fully to university settings, even when the alleged discrimination stems from politically charged conflicts such as the Israel–Hamas war. The decision effectively establishes that antisemitic harassment — whether cloaked in political rhetoric or presented as anti-Zionism — may still constitute a violation of federal civil rights law.

The case against CUNY is being spearheaded by The Lawfare Project, a prominent international legal organization specializing in impact litigation to combat antisemitism and discrimination against Jewish communities. The group, based in New York and active in courts across Europe and North America, has filed dozens of civil rights lawsuits in recent years on behalf of Jewish professionals and students facing bias in corporate, academic, and governmental institutions.

Following the ruling, Ziporah Reich, The Lawfare Project’s Director of Litigation, praised the court’s decision as a watershed moment for Jewish civil rights enforcement in academia.

“This is an important victory not only for Dr. Garrett, but for the Jewish community on campus and beyond,” Reich said in a statement. “The Court’s decision sends a clear message that antisemitism in the workplace — including at our universities — will not be tolerated. We look forward to moving this case forward and achieving justice for Dr. Garrett and Jewish students and faculty who deserve to feel safe, respected, and protected in their academic environments.”

Reich also emphasized that CUNY’s alleged failure to act on repeated warnings — even after the October 7 attacks triggered global demonstrations and a documented surge in antisemitic incidents — demonstrates an institutional abdication of responsibility.

The Lawfare Project’s broader goal, she added, is to establish binding precedents that hold universities accountable under federal civil rights statutes when they fail to protect Jewish faculty and students from targeted hate.

The City University of New York system — the largest urban public university network in the United States — has faced intensifying scrutiny over allegations of antisemitism for several years. Multiple congressional hearings, city council inquiries, and civil complaints have accused CUNY colleges of fostering a hostile climate for Jewish students, often linked to radical anti-Israel activism and a breakdown of institutional oversight.

At Hunter College, where Dr. Garrett has served as Chair of Jewish Studies since 2021, tensions have reportedly escalated since October 2023. According to the lawsuit, Hunter administrators received dozens of formal complaints from Jewish students and faculty reporting threats and vandalism — but allegedly failed to take remedial action, provide security, or issue clear statements condemning antisemitic rhetoric.

The administration has not commented publicly on the court’s ruling, and CUNY’s legal representatives did not immediately respond to requests for clarification. However, internal documents obtained by the plaintiffs reportedly show patterns of delayed or inconsistent responses to complaints involving Jewish faculty compared with other protected groups.

Civil rights attorneys say the case could become a national benchmark for how antisemitism is treated under federal employment law — particularly at public universities that are also subject to constitutional constraints on free speech.

By framing the issue through the lens of Title VII rather than Title VI (which governs discrimination in federally funded education programs), the lawsuit directly targets CUNY as an employer, not merely as an educational institution. This approach allows for broader discovery powers and potential damages, and could compel universities nationwide to reexamine their internal compliance mechanisms.

Legal scholars also note that the case’s fact pattern — particularly the denial of Jewish religious observance alongside accommodation for other faith traditions — may set an important precedent for religious equality claims in secular institutions.

“This is not just about campus speech,” said one New York–based civil rights lawyer following the case. “It’s about an employer’s duty to ensure that Jewish employees can do their jobs without fear, stigma, or exclusion. The fact that the court refused to dismiss this claim signals a major shift in how seriously the judiciary is taking antisemitism in academia.”

For many Jewish academics, Dr. Garrett’s case symbolizes more than one professor’s personal struggle — it reflects a larger reckoning within American higher education, where ideological activism has at times blurred the line between political discourse and outright hate.

The Lawfare Project hopes that the outcome will establish universities’ legal obligation not only to condemn antisemitism rhetorically, but to act decisively against it — through security measures, disciplinary action, and equal treatment of Jewish expression.

As the case moves toward discovery, CUNY will face mounting pressure to disclose internal communications and records that could reveal how administrators responded — or failed to respond — to Dr. Garrett’s pleas for protection.

If the plaintiffs prevail, the case could reshape universities’ liability standards for campus antisemitism nationwide, compelling institutions to treat antisemitic harassment with the same legal gravity as other forms of bias.

For Dr. Garrett, who continues to lead the Jewish Studies Department under extraordinary personal and professional strain, the court’s decision is at least a validation that her claims deserve to be heard.

“This is the first step toward accountability,” Reich said. “But it’s also a reminder that silence in the face of hate is not neutrality — it’s complicity.”

As universities across the country struggle with similar crises of conscience, the CUNY case may soon become the legal and moral touchstone for an era in which academic freedom and civil rights collide, and the question of how far institutions will go to protect their Jewish communities is finally put to the test.