A U.S. federal judge struck much of an Israeli Jew’s historical narrative on the Jewish state from a discrimination complaint against the City University of New York, though allowed key statements to remain, including descriptions of the link between Zionism and Jews.
Avraham Goldstein, an assistant mathematics professor at CUNY’s Borough of Manhattan Community College, lost a prior case filed with five other CUNY professors against CUNY and its antisemitic teachers’ union, seeking to be released from their exclusive, forced representation, as mandated by state law.
Earlier this year, he filed a new lawsuit, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation after complaining about a campus “Palestinian Solidarity Series.”
The lawsuit includes claims of religious and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law.
Judge Jeannette Vargas of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled on Monday that, at the request of a defendant, she was striking large portions of Goldstein’s third amended complaint.
That complaint included references to the origin of the Jewish people in the Middle East and the land of Israel, including under sovereignty, along with the Jewish people’s forced exile and return, as well as the history of Israel’s acceptance and Arab rejection of the U.N. partition plan following World War II.
In her decision, Vargas herself noted that it is rare for a judge to strike portions of a claim.
Still, she ruled that much of Goldstein’s claims about the history of the Middle East had no bearing on the case and that requiring the defendant “to either admit or deny allegations regarding historical events that took place in 136 C.E. would serve no purpose.”
Vargas added that “to the extent certain of these paragraphs set forth controverted and charged contentions regarding the creation of separate Israeli and Palestinian states in the Middle East, requiring defendant to respond to those immaterial allegations would be prejudicial.”
She did not, however, strike two claims made by Goldstein, including that he “is a Zionist by dint of his religion and his national origin.”
Goldstein’s definition of Zionism also remains in the complaint.
“Zionism is the movement for the re-establishment, and now the development and protection, of a sovereign Jewish nation in its ancestral homeland,” the complaint says. “Zionism is not just a political movement; for the vast majority of Jewish people across time and space, including Plaintiff, Zionism is and always has been an integral part of their Jewish, often religious, identities.”
