Hansen v. City of New York

Background

Kenneth Hansen was a New York City police officer from 2004 until his termination in 2021. He alleged that the City of New York and several NYPD employees discriminated against him and retaliated against him because of his military service. His claims arose under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), the New York Military Law (NYML), the New York Civil Service Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Hansen alleged that, after military service, he received a negative performance evaluation, lacked evaluations for two later years, and lost promotion and Intelligence Division opportunities. He also alleged that he was denied overtime, transfer and shift-change requests, and other opportunities; subjected to derogatory remarks and petty harassment; and marked absent without official leave during military duty, although that designation was later rescinded. He further alleged that he complained to the NYPD’s Equal Opportunity Employment Office and to the federal Veterans Employment and Training Service. Years later, the NYPD disciplined and terminated him after proceedings concerning domestic incidents and related allegations.

USERRA discrimination

The court granted the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Hansen’s USERRA discrimination claims. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim, assuming the pleaded facts are true.

The court explained that USERRA protects service members from employment discrimination based on military service, but it requires equal treatment rather than special accommodation for military absences. The court concluded that the 2009 negative evaluation was not itself a covered denial of an employment benefit and that Hansen did not allege that military status was a motivating factor in that evaluation. The allegations concerning lost overtime similarly described a failure to accommodate his absences, not unequal treatment.

The court also concluded that the transfer and shift-change allegations lacked enough detail to show that the requested changes were employment benefits protected by USERRA. The derogatory remarks, petty harassment, and rescinded absent-without-leave designation either did not involve a denial of an employment benefit or were not supported by sufficient allegations of discriminatory motive. The court therefore dismissed the USERRA discrimination claims.

USERRA retaliation

The court also dismissed Hansen’s USERRA retaliation claims. Hansen adequately alleged that he engaged in protected activity by making complaints and that the defendants knew about those complaints. But the court found that the alleged retaliatory acts either occurred before the protected activity, occurred too long afterward to support a causal connection based on timing alone, or were not materially adverse employment actions.

The later disciplinary actions and termination occurred more than three years after Hansen’s last identified protected activity, and the complaint did not allege other facts connecting them to retaliation. The remaining potentially timely allegations—such as changed mealtimes and contacts with Hansen’s military supervisors—were considered petty slights that did not materially change his employment terms, benefits, or responsibilities. The court also concluded that a 2024 Supreme Court decision concerning employment discrimination under Title VII did not change the result here.

Hostile-work-environment theory

The court stated that Hansen’s complaint did not plead a standalone hostile-work-environment claim under USERRA. Although the complaint used that phrase, it included it only in connection with the separately pleaded discrimination and retaliation counts. The court further held that, even if such a claim had been pleaded, the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to state one.

State and local claims

The court dismissed Hansen’s NYML discrimination claim because the standards governing that claim were the same as those governing his failed USERRA discrimination claim. For Hansen’s claims under the New York Civil Service Law, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to decide related state-law claims after deciding federal claims. The court concluded that these claims involved different or developing legal standards and were better addressed by New York courts.

The order expressly stated that Hansen could refile the New York Civil Service Law, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims in state court. The court did not grant him permission to file another amended complaint because he had not requested amendment or identified additional facts that would cure the defects.

Disposition

Judge Furman granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed entry of judgment for the defendants, and ordered the case closed. The federal USERRA claims and the NYML claim were dismissed; the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state and local claims, which the order stated could be refiled in state court.