Whitfield v. City of New York

Background

John D. Whitfield, identified in the letter as a candidate for a provisional Youth Development Specialist position at the New York City Administration for Children’s Services, brought claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that defendants considered his memoir when making a hiring decision, treated him differently because of a prior murder conviction, discriminated against him based on that conviction, and failed to train employees or maintain lawful hiring policies.

The letter states that, on December 23, 2024, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court dismissed Whitfield’s First Amendment retaliation claims against the individual defendants, his Fourteenth Amendment discrimination claims, and any claim under New York State Correction Law. The letter also states that Whitfield’s First Amendment retaliation claim against the City and his state and city human-rights claims survived. Those earlier rulings were not the action taken in this January 2 order.

Requests

Defendants asked to extend the deadline for serving a motion for reconsideration from January 6 to January 20, 2025. They also asked the court to stay discovery and postpone related deadlines, including the conference required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), party letters, the initial pretrial conference, and the deadline for their answer. Defendants argued that a reconsideration motion might dispose of the remaining federal claim, reduce or eliminate the need for discovery, and avoid burdens on the parties and the court.

Whitfield consented to the requested extension. As to the other requests, he stated that he planned to file his own motion for reconsideration, believed the requested information was irrelevant, did not intend to continue the case in its current state, and would appeal to the Second Circuit if certain issues remained unchanged.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered that the application was granted in part and denied in part. The deadline to file any motion for reconsideration was extended to January 20, 2025. An opposition to such a motion would be due within two weeks after the motion, and any reply would be due within one week after the opposition.

The request for a stay of discovery was denied without prejudice to renewal after a motion for reconsideration is filed. The court also ordered that all other dates and deadlines, including the initial pretrial conference, remained in effect. The clerk was directed to mail the endorsed letter to Whitfield and terminate ECF No. 93.