Murray v. Brag Sales Inc.

Background

Jonathan Nathaniel Murray, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Brag Sales Inc., doing business as Uneeda Enterprises, and Bradley J. Gruber. He asserted employment-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

Murray alleged that he is African American and has, or was perceived to have, a disability because of diabetes. He began working for Uneeda in November 2018 as a delivery driver and warehouse staffer. After taking medical leave in October 2019 because of high blood sugar and hospitalization, he told the company about his medical condition and need for a reasonable accommodation. He alleged that, after returning, he was allowed to drive only occasionally, while a supervisor said he could no longer drive because of concerns about his medical condition. Uneeda hired a Hispanic, non-disabled employee as a delivery driver and warehouse employee in or around November 2019.

Murray alleged that supervisor Carlos Trastoy treated Hispanic workers better than Black workers, treated Black workers with less patience, and denied them overtime pay. He further alleged that Trastoy fired him on December 9, 2019, after yelling at him in an effort to provoke him. Murray identified non-Black and non-disabled employees who, he said, were not disciplined, discharged, or stopped from driving after similar or more serious conduct. He also alleged that Uneeda replaced him with a Hispanic driver.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court had to accept well-pleaded allegations as true, draw reasonable inferences for Murray, and give special consideration to his filings because he was proceeding without a lawyer. Even so, Murray had to allege facts supporting a plausible claim.

ADA Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Murray’s ADA claim. It concluded that the allegations plausibly placed Uneeda within the ADA’s coverage because an employee attendance sheet indicated that the company had approximately seventeen employees in 2019.

The court also found that Murray plausibly alleged that Uneeda regarded him as physically impaired. The alleged statement that he could no longer drive because of his medical condition, together with the transfer of most of his driving duties to a non-disabled employee, supported that inference. Murray’s co-worker’s statements that he performed his job well and was punctual supported the allegation that he was qualified. His firing was an adverse employment action, and the timing and treatment of his driving duties supported a minimal inference that disability discrimination contributed to the firing.

Title VII and Section 1981 Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Murray’s Title VII and Section 1981 claims. Title VII requires a plausible allegation that race was a motivating factor in an adverse employment decision. Section 1981 requires a plausible allegation that the plaintiff would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected contractual right but for race.

The court found that Murray’s allegations collectively supported an inference of racial discrimination. Those allegations included Trastoy’s alleged more favorable treatment of Hispanic workers, less patient treatment of Black workers, denial of overtime to Black workers, different treatment of non-Black employees after verbal altercations or workplace accidents, and Uneeda’s replacement of Murray with a Hispanic driver. The court stated that the allegations plausibly supported an inference that racial discrimination was a but-for cause of the termination, even if other factors, including Murray’s disability, also contributed.

NYSHRL and NYCHRL Claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss Murray’s NYSHRL claim. That claim relied on the same allegations of race- and disability-based termination as the federal claims, and the court concluded that stating claims under the ADA and Title VII also allowed Murray to state a claim under the more liberal NYSHRL standard.

The court granted the motion to dismiss Murray’s NYCHRL claim. The court explained that the NYCHRL protects New York City residents and certain non-residents who work in New York City or allege that the challenged conduct had an impact there. Murray alleged that he lived in Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, worked at Uneeda’s office in Garden City, New York, and was discharged there. Because Garden City is outside New York City and Murray did not allege an impact within New York City, the court concluded that he failed to state an NYCHRL claim.

Disposition

Judge Oetken ordered that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The ADA, Title VII, Section 1981, and NYSHRL claims remained. The defendants were ordered to file an answer to those remaining claims within fourteen days after the opinion and order. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the motion at Docket Number 19.