Nanakumo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation

Background

Ebipamone N. Nanakumo, proceeding without a lawyer, sued New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation (H+H), Dr. Mitchell Katz, Dr. Jose A. Pagan, Yvette Villanueva, Christopher Roker, and Barbara Marrero. He asserted employment-discrimination claims based on religion and national origin under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He also asserted religious-accommodation, hostile-work-environment, constitutional, and Religious Freedom Restoration Act claims.

Nanakumo alleged that H+H failed to promote him and reduced his managerial authority because of his Nigerian national origin. He also challenged H+H’s COVID-19 vaccination policy. He requested a religious exemption, which H+H granted, but H+H concluded that no accommodation would allow him to perform his essential duties while unvaccinated. H+H provided 60 days of unpaid, job-protected leave and later determined that extending the leave would cause undue hardship. After H+H denied a later medical-exemption request, it separated him from employment for failing to comply with the vaccination policy.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Nanakumo separately requested sanctions, alleging that the defendants made false statements in their briefing.

Rulings on the claims

The court denied in part and granted in part the motion to dismiss.

The court allowed Nanakumo’s Title VII religious-discrimination claim to proceed against H+H. At the pleading stage, the court found it plausible that he held a sincere religious belief conflicting with vaccination, informed H+H of that belief, and suffered discipline through the end of his leave and subsequent employment separation. The court also concluded that whether remote work or another accommodation would have caused H+H undue hardship required fact-intensive consideration that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

The court dismissed Nanakumo’s Title VII religious-hostile-work-environment claim against H+H. It found that the allegations concerning an email about his relief from duty and threats of termination for unvaccinated employees did not plausibly show hostility based on religious animus.

The court dismissed the Title VII national-origin discrimination claims because Nanakumo did not identify national-origin discrimination in his charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court found that the charge, which alleged religious discrimination, did not give the agency adequate notice to investigate national-origin discrimination. Although the court found that his allegations about promotion and managerial authority could otherwise support an inference of national-origin discrimination, it held that he had not exhausted the required administrative remedy.

The court dismissed Title VII claims against the individual defendants because individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII.

The court allowed the NYSHRL and NYCHRL religious-discrimination claims to proceed against H+H and all individual defendants. Although Nanakumo did not expressly use an aiding-and-abetting theory, the court construed his allegations that the individual defendants helped establish, enforce, or communicate the relevant employment decisions as sufficient at this stage. The court also allowed his NYSHRL and NYCHRL hostile-work-environment claims to proceed against all defendants under the state and city laws’ applicable standards.

The court dismissed claims under Section 11 of Article I of the New York State Constitution, claims under Article VI and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim. The court explained that these claims exceeded the limited permission previously given to Nanakumo to amend his complaint and assert only specified employment-discrimination claims.

Sanctions and further amendment

The court denied Nanakumo’s request for sanctions. It found no basis to conclude that the defendants’ filings were unsupported or made for an improper purpose, and characterized the sanctions request as essentially a further response to the defendants’ merits arguments.

The court declined to grant leave to amend again. It noted that Nanakumo had amended his pleadings four times, had received prior instructions limiting the claims he could bring, and had not explained how another amendment would cure the dismissed claims. The court stated that further amendment would be futile for the claims dismissed in this ruling and for claims previously dismissed by earlier orders.

Disposition

The only claims surviving were: (1) the Title VII religious-discrimination claim against H+H; (2) the NYSHRL religious-discrimination claims against all defendants; (3) the NYCHRL religious-discrimination claims against all defendants; (4) the NYSHRL hostile-work-environment claims against all defendants; and (5) the NYCHRL hostile-work-environment claims against all defendants. The court denied in part and granted in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, denied the sanctions request, and ordered the defendants to answer the Fourth Amended Complaint within 21 days after entry of the order.