Smith v. City of New York

Background

Myra 8S. Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims against the City of New York concerning her employment at the New York Police Department. The opinion says she alleged discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and age; retaliation; harassment under federal, state, and local law; and obstruction of justice.

The report addressed Smith’s third request for temporary injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. Her current application asserted that a New York City Police Department employee changed her work schedule in retaliation after she refused to follow an order and later refused disciplinary action without a statutory hearing. Smith also alleged that the employee falsified business records and tampered with evidence. The court had denied her two earlier requests because she had not shown a likelihood of irreparable harm.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. The court stated that a person seeking one must show a likelihood of success on the merits, a likelihood of irreparable harm without the injunction, that the balance of equities favors the injunction, and that the injunction serves the public interest. Irreparable harm means an injury that is actual and imminent, rather than remote or speculative, and that cannot be adequately remedied later.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Smith had not shown a likelihood of imminent or irreparable harm. Her declaration included general statements that the employee’s alleged abuse of power caused her to feel seriously alarmed, annoyed, or harassed and to believe she was threatened with death or serious bodily injury. The court found that these statements lacked details about any threat to Smith’s or another person’s life or safety.

Smith’s separate affirmation identified two more specific claimed injuries. First, she asserted that termination would cause her to lose insurance and that, because she had life-threatening diseases, this could shorten her life. The court found no facts showing that termination or loss of insurance was imminent, that her life was likely to be shortened, or that she could not obtain insurance or medical care through other means. It characterized the claimed chain of events as speculative.

Second, Smith asserted that working nights instead of days would make her vulnerable when entering or leaving her apartment building because nighttime security staff and daytime activity would be absent. She stated that at least three other women had been sexually assaulted or murdered in the building and that she could not afford private security. The court expressed sympathy but found the alleged danger speculative and too attenuated from a change in work hours.

The court also stated that Smith could have raised these arguments in her two earlier applications and had not presented new facts that changed the analysis. It further explained that an unfavorable or changed work schedule might cause inconvenience but did not establish irreparable harm.

Disposition and procedural posture

The opinion is a report and recommendation, not a final ruling by the district judge. Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger recommended that Smith’s motions for preliminary injunctive relief be denied. He stated that the court’s analysis was not an assessment of the merits of Smith’s underlying claims. The opinion also stated that arguments not otherwise addressed were moot or without merit. The parties were given 14 days to file written objections, and the opinion warned that failing to object on time would waive objections and prevent appellate review.