which employees of the Transit Authority who file employment discrimination charges with federal, state or local fair employment practices agencies, including charges alleging acts that are unlawful under Title VII, are prohibited from pursuing complaints involving such allegations of discrimination with the Transit Authority’s [EEO] Division”; and that the policy and practice “is intended to deny [its employees] the full exercise of [their] rights” under Title VII. DISCUSSION A. Mootness. A ruling that a case is not moot is reviewed de novo. Comer v. Cisneros, 37 F.3d 775, 787 (2d Cir.1994). This case is not moot unless no reasonable expectation remains that the policy will be reinstituted. United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 633, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897-98, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953) (<HOLDING>). The district court found that the Transit
holding that voluntary cessation of a challenged action does not make a case moot unless the defendant can show that there is no reasonable expectation that the challenged action will be repeated holding that a sentencing decision will be affirmed if challenged factor is permissible and other factors are not challenged holding that unconstitutional government action can only be challenged by a person directly affected it cannot be challenged by one invoicing the rights of third parties holding that voluntary cessation of the challenged activity is insufficient to render a case moot if the legality of the challenged practices is still disputed because the official is free to return to his old ways  quoting wt grant co 345 us at 362 73 sct at 897 holding state of the law must be determined at time of challenged action