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 under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleged discrimination based on his Asian race, Islamic religion, and Pakistani national origin, as well as retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The opinion notes that The ExecuSearch Group is currently known as the Tandym Group.

In an order dated September 19, 2024, the Court granted in part Pasha’s earlier motion for leave to amend. It allowed allegations concerning discrimination based on ethnicity and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, but denied his requests to add the New York State Department of Energy Conservation as a defendant and to allege gender discrimination.

Motion for Reconsideration

Pasha asked the Court to reconsider the decision not to add the Department of Energy Conservation. He argued that his proposed allegations showed that the agency jointly controlled his employment with the DOH. He later submitted a photograph and a signed statement from Paul Maggio, who claimed to have worked for the Department of Energy Conservation and to have supervised Pasha on some occasions.

The Court denied reconsideration. It found that Pasha had identified neither a change in controlling law nor newly available evidence obtained after he submitted his original materials. The Court also explained that the signed statement was not newly available because Pasha already knew Maggio had worked at the testing site and had not previously alleged facts about him.

Motion for Leave to Amend

Pasha separately sought permission to add Anida Fregjaj, identified in the opinion as a managing director at Tandym Group, as a defendant. He also sought to add claims for hostile work environment, disparate treatment, discrimination in contract formation, discrimination in contract performance, retaliation, and failure to enforce contracts.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b), a motion must state its grounds specifically and identify the requested relief. In the context of a motion to amend, the Court stated that the party must provide a complete copy of the proposed amended complaint so the Court and the opposing parties can understand the requested changes. Pasha did not provide that complete proposed complaint. The Court therefore denied his motion for leave to file an amended complaint without prejudice under Rule 7(b).

Conclusion and Effect

The Court denied Pasha’s motion for reconsideration and denied without prejudice his motion for leave to file an amended complaint. The Clerk was directed to terminate the listed motions. Pasha was directed to file an amended complaint by January 3, 2025, limited to the ethnicity-discrimination allegations and the § 1981 claims previously authorized by the Court. The defendants’ answer or response was due January 20, 2025.

The Court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal of the order would not be taken in good faith and denied Pasha permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. Judge Edgardo Ramos signed the order on December 4, 2024.