Pasha v. New York State Department of Health

Background

Talha Pasha, who is proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York State Department of Health (DOH) and the ExecuSearch Group, alleging employment discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also alleged retaliation for complaining about discrimination.

Pasha alleged that ExecuSearch hired him as an administrative assistant and assigned him to work at a DOH COVID-19 testing site. He claimed that he was initially allowed to leave work for Friday prayers at a nearby mosque, but that this permission was later withdrawn even though other workers were allowed to leave. He also alleged that a supervisor called him “Taliban” twice, including once in front of a coworker, and that he was later terminated for “unprofessionalism.” The opinion states that the complaint does not allege the date of termination.

Pasha asked to file an amended complaint. His proposed amendment would add the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) as a defendant and would add claims involving gender and Punjabi, Kashmiri, and Pashtun ethnicity. It also would add claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, a federal law that prohibits certain racial and ethnic discrimination in contractual relationships, and under the New York State Human Rights Law.

Legal standard

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, courts generally should allow amendments when justice requires. The court may deny an amendment when it would be futile, meaning the proposed claim could not survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court accepts the pleaded facts as true and asks whether the proposed claims are legally sufficient and plausible. Because Pasha is representing himself, the court read his filings liberally, while noting that self-represented parties still must comply with procedural and substantive law.

Addition of the DEC

The court denied Pasha’s request to add the DEC. For liability under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, or § 1981, an employment relationship must exist. Pasha alleged that ExecuSearch hired him, but did not allege that the DEC hired or paid him.

Pasha argued that the DEC was his joint employer with the DOH. The court explained that joint employment may exist when two entities share significant control over the same employee, including control over pay, hiring, firing, or daily work activities. The proposed complaint did not plausibly allege that the DEC exercised this type of control. Although Pasha alleged that Bob McCormick worked for the DEC and had “input towards” the termination decision, he did not allege that McCormick or the DEC fired him. The court also found no sufficient allegation that the DEC controlled his daily activities.

Ethnicity and racial-discrimination claims

The court granted the motion to add allegations of discrimination based on Pasha’s Punjabi, Pashtun, and Kashmiri ethnicity. It concluded that Pasha plausibly connected those ethnic characteristics with being called a member of a terrorist group. At the amendment stage, the court did not decide whether Pasha would ultimately prove discrimination; it decided only that the proposed claims were not clearly frivolous or legally insufficient.

The court also granted the motion to add the proposed § 1981 claims. Although the proposed complaint identified Pasha’s race as Asian, his arguments focused on alleged mistreatment connected to his South Asian descent and Punjabi ethnicity. The court concluded that Pasha had adequately alleged discrimination based on ethnic characteristics, which § 1981 covers. The defendants did not oppose adding religion or national-origin discrimination claims based on the same facts, and the court granted the remainder of the motion.

Gender-discrimination claims

The court denied Pasha’s request to add gender-discrimination claims. The proposed complaint stated that Pasha is a man but included no factual allegations specifically concerning gender discrimination. Pasha also did not respond to the defendants’ argument that these claims were futile, so the court treated the request as abandoned.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part Pasha’s motion to amend. It denied the request to add the DEC as a defendant and to add gender-discrimination claims. It granted the remainder of the motion. Pasha was directed to file the amended complaint by October 21, 2024, and the defendants’ answer or other response was due by November 12, 2024.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Pasha permission to proceed without paying the required fees for an appeal.