UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------x MICHAEL FEINSTEIN,

Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -against- Case No. 19-CV-3344 (FB) (RML)

RICHARD A. CARRANZA, in his official capacity as Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education, and the NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,

Defendants. ------------------------------------------------x Appearances: For the Plaintiff: For the Defendants: HOWARD BORKMAN DEVIN S. COHEN 1501 Broadway, 21st Floor Assistant Corporation Counsel New York, New York 10036 100 Church Street New York, New York 10007

BLOCK, Senior District Judge:

Michael Feinstein, a teacher employed by the New York City Department of Education, alleges that he was subject to a hostile work environment and otherwise subjected to discrimination based on his religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants move to dismiss on the ground that his complaint was not timely filed under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). The cited statute requires a plaintiff to file his or complaint within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission. This time limit is treated “not as [a] jurisdictional predicate[], but as [a] limitations period[] subject to equitable tolling.” Johnson v. Al Tech Specialties Steel Corp.,

(2d Cir. 1984). In the absence of tolling, “the court

cannot extend the limitations period by even one day.”

(quoting Rice v. New England Coll.,

(1st Cir. 1982)). Feinstein’s complaint alleges that he received a right-to-sue letter on March 6, 2019. His complaint was due to be filed by June 4, 2019. It was not filed,

however, until June 5, 2019. He has not offered any grounds for equitable tolling. Indeed, he has not responded to the defendants’ motion as all. Thus, Feinstein’s Title VII claim is untimely. And “[i]n general, where the

federal claims are dismissed before trial, the state claims should be dismissed as well.” Marcus v. AT&T Corp.,

, 57 (2d Cir. 1998). Accordingly, the defendants’ motion is granted and Feinstein’s complaint is dismissed. SO ORDERED.

_/S/ Frederic Block__________ FREDERIC BLOCK Senior United States District Judge Brooklyn, New York February 24, 2021