Pasha v. New York State Department of Health
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 22
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Ramos directed responses to Pasha’s reconsideration motion without deciding it.
The order affects Talha S. Pasha and the defendants, particularly the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, whose proposed addition as a defendant is being challenged in the pending reconsideration motion.
What happened
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Talha S. Pasha objected to an earlier order that denied his request to add the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as a defendant. Pasha argued that the agency jointly controlled his employment with the New York State Department of Health and staffing agency The Tandym Group.
Pasha argued that the earlier order overlooked allegations about supervision, scheduling, pay, records, work assignments, and involvement in his termination. He also argued that the earlier order misread two cases concerning joint-employer relationships and failed to apply the rule that control over an employee is the main consideration, with no single factor being decisive.
The current order did not decide whether the earlier ruling should be reconsidered. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendants to respond to the reconsideration motion by October 31, 2024.
The detailed version
- Pasha v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:22-cv-03355
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 17, 2024
Background
Talha S. Pasha filed an objection to Order 120 and a motion asking the court to reconsider that order. The caption also names the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Department of Health, and The Tandym Group, formerly known as ExecuSearch Group. The opinion identifies Pasha as proceeding without a lawyer.
Order 120 had denied Pasha’s request to add the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) as a defendant. The current filing challenges that decision. Pasha contends that his amended complaint plausibly alleged that NYSDEC and the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH), working with staffing agency The Tandym Group, jointly controlled aspects of his employment at a COVID-19 testing site.
Pasha’s arguments
Pasha argues that the joint-employer inquiry under Title VII considers nonexclusive common-law agency factors, including control over hiring, firing, training, promotion, discipline, supervision, records, insurance, and payroll. He emphasizes that control is the principal consideration and that the court must evaluate all circumstances rather than treat one factor as decisive.
According to Pasha, his amended complaint alleged that NYSDOH initially assigned him to one work site, later reassigned him to a NYSDEC work site, and that Bob McCormick, identified as an NYSDEC employee, supervised him there. Pasha also asserts that NYSDOH and NYSDEC jointly managed the testing operation, shared resources and records, and were involved in employment and termination decisions. These are Pasha’s allegations and arguments in support of reconsideration, not findings made in the current order.
Pasha further argues that Order 120 mischaracterized or misapplied Fried v. LVI Services, Inc. and Byron v. Bronx Parent Housing Network. He contends that those cases involved different theories or lacked allegations showing the alleged entities’ control over hiring, firing, or other employment conditions, whereas his amended complaint alleged direct supervision and involvement in his termination. He also argues that the court did not adequately address his retaliation claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Legal standard described in the filing
The filing states that reconsideration requires the moving party to identify controlling decisions or facts that the court overlooked and that could reasonably be expected to change the result. It also states that mere disagreement with the court’s legal conclusion is not enough. The filing relies on the requirement that pleadings by a person without a lawyer be read broadly and that a complaint provide a short and plain statement supporting entitlement to relief.
Current order and disposition
The text provided does not show a ruling granting or denying Pasha’s motion for reconsideration. Instead, the order directs the defendants to respond to the motion by October 31, 2024. Judge Edgardo Ramos therefore left the reconsideration request pending in the current order. The filing also states that Pasha intends to preserve objections for a possible appeal, but the current order does not decide any appeal-related issue.
Read the full 22-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.