Pasha v. New York State Department of Health
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Ramos directed defendants to respond to Pasha’s reconsideration motion by November 1, 2024.
Talha S. Pasha and the named defendants, including the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and The Tandym Group.
What happened
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Talha S. Pasha challenged an earlier court order concerning whether the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation could be treated as a joint employer or agent under Title VII. Pasha argued that the agency helped influence his termination after he complained about discrimination.
Pasha argued that the earlier order misapplied Title VII and misunderstood cases about joint employers, supervisors, and third parties involved in termination decisions. He also argued that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should be held liable as a joint employer or considered an agent of the other defendants, and preserved his arguments for appeal.
The court did not decide the reconsideration motion in this order. Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendants to respond by November 1, 2024.
The detailed version
- Pasha v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:22-cv-03355
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 18, 2024
Background
Talha S. Pasha filed a supplement to his objection to Order 120 and moved for reconsideration. The named defendants are the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and The Tandym Group, formerly known as ExecuSearch Group. The excerpt does not reproduce the full earlier order, but Pasha identifies one of its conclusions as stating that a third party’s influence on a decisionmaker’s termination of a plaintiff does not establish a joint-employer relationship.
Pasha’s arguments
Pasha argued that this conclusion conflicts with Title VII’s treatment of an employer’s agents and with case law concerning joint employers and supervisors. He contended that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should be treated as a joint employer because, according to his filing, its supervisor participated with the Department of Health and The Tandym Group in the decision to terminate him. He also argued that the agency should at least be considered an agent of the other defendants.
Pasha disputed the defendants’ reliance on Fried v. LVI Services, Inc., asserting that the cited decision involved minority shareholders whose lack of control was important to the result. He also argued that the defendants mischaracterized Felder and that cases such as Klinkowitz and Nelson did not support the earlier order’s broad statement about third-party influence. Pasha alleged that he experienced discrimination, warned the responsible parties, and was terminated after engaging in protected activity. These are arguments and allegations in Pasha’s filing, not findings made in this order.
What the court did
The order did not grant or deny reconsideration and did not resolve whether the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation was a joint employer or agent under Title VII. Instead, Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendants to respond to the motion for reconsideration by November 1, 2024. The order is dated October 18, 2024.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.