Ramirez v. City Of New York

Background

Sally Ramirez alleged that she had worked for the New York City Human Resources Administration/Department of Social Services for more than 30 years. She alleged that she was passed over for an Assistant Deputy Commissioner position because of her age, race, and national origin. Ramirez described herself as a 60-year-old Guyanese woman of Indian descent.

Ramirez alleged that S. Devi Jewram supervised her from 2018 until June 2022 and made comments about older employees, retirement, and Guyanese people. In October 2022, Ramirez applied for an Assistant Deputy Commissioner position. She alleged that Jewram did not interview her and that Darshan Taylor, a white employee in his late 30s or early 40s, received the position. Ramirez also alleged that Jewram helped Taylor update his résumé and circulated a memorandum crediting Taylor with work that Ramirez said had been performed by her team or completed before Taylor joined the agency.

Rulings

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss: the complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible. The court ruled as follows:

Title VII claim

Title VII is the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination based on characteristics including race and national origin. Defendants argued that Ramirez’s Title VII claim should be dismissed because she did not attach her federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue notice to the complaint. Ramirez attached the notice to her opposition brief. The court denied the motion to dismiss on that basis. Defendants did not otherwise seek dismissal of the Title VII claim.

Section 1981 theory pursued through Section 1983

Defendants argued that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 did not permit a claim directly against state actors. Ramirez clarified that she was not bringing a freestanding § 1981 claim. Instead, she was using 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the procedure for enforcing rights provided by § 1981. The court stated that this approach is permissible.

Section 1983 claim against the City

The court dismissed Ramirez’s § 1983 claim against the City of New York. A municipality may be liable under § 1983 when an alleged violation results from an official policy, a custom, or the act of an official whose decisions represent the municipality’s policy. Ramirez relied on a theory that Jewram was a final policymaker.

The court found that Ramirez had not alleged that Jewram had authority under state law to make policy for the Human Resources Administration or that Jewram made the final decision to promote Taylor over Ramirez. The complaint did not explain whether Jewram posted the position, interviewed candidates, selected candidates for interviews, or decided who would receive the promotion. The allegations that Jewram helped Taylor update his résumé and announced Taylor’s selection did not show that Jewram made the promotion decision. The court therefore dismissed the § 1983 claim against the City.

Claims against Jewram

The court dismissed Ramirez’s claims against Jewram under § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

For the § 1983 claim, the court explained that the defendant must have personally participated in the alleged violation. Ramirez’s complaint did not clearly allege that Jewram participated in the decision not to promote her. The court noted that Jewram was no longer Ramirez’s supervisor when Ramirez applied and that the complaint did not allege that Jewram posted the position, interviewed candidates, chose who would be interviewed, or decided whom to promote.

The court also found that the allegations did not sufficiently state claims under the state or city human-rights laws. Ramirez alleged that Jewram made comments about older workers, a candidate’s age, and Guyanese people. The court found that the retirement-related comments did not appear discriminatory, the comments about the candidate were not tied to Ramirez, and the comments about Guyanese people, although inappropriate and offensive, were not specifically directed at Ramirez. The complaint also lacked allegations about the comments’ context and frequency and did not adequately allege that Jewram treated Ramirez differently because of a protected characteristic.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The dismissed claims were not the end of the case because Ramirez was given until September 6, 2024, to file an amended complaint. The opinion does not add a “with prejudice” or “without prejudice” qualifier to the dismissals. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion docketed as Dkt. 11.