Pasha v. New York State Department of Health
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-03355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, Judge Ramos directed defendants to respond to Pasha’s motion to add a party and claims.
Talha S. Pasha, the existing defendants, and Anida Fregjaj, whom Pasha sought to add as an individual defendant. The defendants were required to respond to the motion by November 6, 2024.
What happened
Talha S. Pasha sued the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, The Tandym Group, and Anida Fregjaj over alleged discriminatory termination and retaliation. In Pasha v. New York State Department of Health, the claims include claims under federal and New York civil-rights laws.
Pasha asked to add Anida Fregjaj as an individual defendant and to add several discrimination-related claims under federal law. Pasha argued that Fregjaj’s decisions about staffing, scheduling, and workplace policies supported the proposed claims and that adding her would be more efficient than starting another case.
The court did not decide whether to add Fregjaj or the proposed claims in this order. Instead, Judge Edgardo Ramos directed the defendants to respond to the motion by November 6, 2024.
The detailed version
- Pasha v. New York State Department of Health · No. 1:22-cv-03355
- Edgardo Ramos
- Oct. 30, 2024
Background
Talha S. Pasha brought claims alleging wrongful termination and retaliation based on discrimination. The opinion identifies claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and New York’s Human Rights Law. The defendants listed in the caption are the New York State Department of Health, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, The Tandym Group (formerly ExecuSearch Group), and Anida Fregjaj.
Requested Amendment
Pasha asked to add Anida Fregjaj, identified as a managing director at Tandym, as an individual defendant. Pasha also sought to add claims described as hostile work environment, disparate treatment, discrimination in contract formation, discrimination in contract performance, retaliation, and failure to enforce contracts. The motion relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, which permits a court to add or remove a party, and argued that the proposed claims involved related facts and legal questions.
Pasha alleged that Fregjaj was responsible for staffing the site, controlled staffing and schedules, helped create policies targeting Pasha’s protected characteristics, and participated in conduct leading to Pasha’s termination. The motion asserted that these allegations plausibly supported liability under Section 1981. The opinion also states that an earlier court order had allowed Pasha to pursue Section 1981 claims.
What the Court Did
The order did not grant or deny the motion to add Fregjaj and the proposed claims. It directed the defendants to respond by November 6, 2024. Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the order on October 30, 2024.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.