Ancrum v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

Background

Sylvia Ancrum alleged that she had worked for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection since 2016. In February 2022, she reported that unknown men and vehicles were following her and that people were observing her home. She also reported that coworker Jose Guzman told her that unidentified “laborers” had made sexually degrading comments about her.

The Department did not investigate those reports, according to the complaint. Instead, it provided information about mental-health resources, contacted Ancrum’s adult daughter, arranged a medical evaluation, and offered treatment options. A doctor found no mental impairment or incapacity. In June 2022, the Department brought more than twenty disciplinary charges relating to time and attendance, work performance, and workplace behavior. The charges were resolved through an agreement requiring a ten-day suspension, with five days held in abeyance, and participation in the Department’s employee-assistance program.

In November 2023, Ancrum alleged that her work computer’s usual scenery screensaver had been replaced with an image of an orangutan. She characterized the image as a racial prank or harassment by an unknown Department employee. The Department removed the image after she reported it.

Claims and Motion

Ancrum asserted sex-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She presented those claims under disparate-treatment and hostile-work-environment theories, and the court also treated the complaint as asserting a possible retaliation claim under Title VII. She separately asserted a racial-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

The Department moved to dismiss all claims for failure to state a legally sufficient claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At this stage, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly supported relief.

Title VII Claims

The court dismissed the disparate-treatment and retaliation theories. Ancrum did not allege facts connecting the offensive comments to the people who decided to discipline her, or facts suggesting that the disciplinary decision was motivated by her sex. For retaliation, the court found that Ancrum alleged no direct evidence of retaliatory intent, pattern of retaliation, or other facts linking her reports or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge to the discipline. The approximately four-month gap, standing alone, was not sufficiently close to support a retaliation inference under the circumstances described.

The court also dismissed the hostile-work-environment claim. It found that the alleged December 2021 comments, although highly offensive, were presented as an isolated episode and were not alleged to be part of a sufficiently severe or pervasive pattern of sexual harassment. The allegations about people following Ancrum and vehicles near her home did not identify the people, their motives, or any connection to the Department or workplace. The allegations that she continued to face pranks and belittlement were too vague to support a claim.

Section 1981 and Section 1983

The court explained that Section 1981 does not apply to state or municipal actors and therefore construed Ancrum’s racial-harassment claim as arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A claim against a municipality under Section 1983 generally requires allegations that the challenged conduct resulted from a municipal policy or custom. The court found that Ancrum alleged only that an unknown employee placed the orangutan image on her computer and did not allege a Department policy or custom. It therefore dismissed the Fourth Cause of Action whether understood as a Section 1981 or Section 1983 claim.

State and City Claims

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over related state-law claims, because it had dismissed all federal claims at an early stage and found no exceptional circumstances. It dismissed Ancrum’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law without prejudice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because this was the first ruling on the sufficiency of Ancrum’s pleading, the court granted her leave to amend. The court’s conclusion states that it granted the Department’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the complaint without prejudice to filing an amended complaint by January 6, 2025. The court warned that, absent a timely extension request, failure to amend by that deadline would result in dismissal with prejudice of the First and Fourth Causes of Action.