Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester City Sch. Dist.

── Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester City Sch. Dist. ── Case No.: 24-2838 (L) Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 06, 2026 Category: General 24-2838 (L) Curry-Malcolm v. Rochester City Sch. Dist. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 6th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, JOSEPH F. BIANCO, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ BERNICE CURRY-MALCOLM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. 24-2838 (Lead), 24-2873 (Con) ROCHESTER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, BARBARA DEANE-WILLIAMS, Superintendent of Schools, individually and collectively, TIMOTHY CLIBY, President and Individually, JOHN ROWE, Vice President and individually, ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISORS AND ADMINISTRATORS OF ROCHESTER, (ASAR), Defendants-Appellees. _____________________________________ For Plaintiff-Appellant: Bernice Curry-Malcolm, Pro Se, West Henrietta, NY. For Defendants-Appellees Ryan J. McDonald, Rochester City School Rochester City School District District, Rochester, NY. and Barbara Deane-Williams: For Defendants-Appellees Brian Deinhart, Arthur Scheuermann, Timothy Cliby, John Rowe, and Tyler Rexhouse, School Administrators Association of Supervisors and Association of New York State, Latham, Administrators of Rochester NY. (ASAR): Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (David G. Larimer, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the October 11, 2024 judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED, and that the remainder of the appeal is DISMISSED. Bernice Curry-Malcolm, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her claims against her former employer, the Rochester City School 2 District (“RCSD”). Curry-Malcolm alleges that RCSD unlawfully retaliated against her on the basis of her age and race, in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”). 1 The district court dismissed all of Curry-Malcolm’s claims in three separate orders, which respectively concluded that (i) res judicata barred certain claims, (ii) Curry-Malcolm failed to state a claim with respect to others, and (iii) she failed to prosecute her remaining claims. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as needed to explain our decision. “In every appeal . . . ‘the first and fundamental question is that of jurisdiction.’” Marquez v. Silver, 96 F.4th 579, 582 (2d Cir. 2024) (quoting Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998)). Here, Curry-Malcolm “challenges not