Stancu v. New York City/Parks Dept.

Background

Ryan Stancu, who litigated without a lawyer, sued the New York City/Parks Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleged religious discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Stancu identifies as an Orthodox Christian and said that his beard was part of his religious observance and that he needed Sundays off to attend religious services.

The Parks Department’s rules generally prohibited park rangers from wearing beards unless they received a religious or medical accommodation. Stancu complained about remarks concerning his beard, later requested an accommodation, and received permission to wear his beard and take one Sunday off per month. He also alleged that supervisors made disparaging comments, photographed his beard weekly, delayed his shielded status, transferred him to Washington Square Park, threatened him with write-ups, reprimanded him after a carbon-monoxide incident, and left a hostile note in his locker. He resigned on May 10, 2020.

Discrimination claims

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for Title VII discrimination claims. Under that framework, the employee must first present evidence supporting an initial discrimination case; the employer must then give a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action; and the employee must present evidence that the reason was false or that discrimination was a motivating factor.

For the delay in granting shielded status, the court held that Stancu did not show a legally significant employment injury. The record showed that no promotions were available, and Stancu did not provide evidence that the delay harmed his pay or career. The court also found no evidence connecting the delay to his religion. Instead, the evidence showed that an NYPD investigator needed additional time to complete the background investigation, and Stancu offered no evidence that this explanation was a pretext for discrimination.

For the transfer from Pier 15 to Washington Square Park, the court held that Stancu did not show a materially adverse change in his job’s terms or conditions. Although he experienced carbon-monoxide incidents at Washington Square Park, the incidents affected other staff as well, and there was no evidence that anyone involved in the transfer knew beforehand that unsafe conditions would occur. The court also found no evidence rebutting the Department’s explanation that the transfer was made to fill vacancies.

The court ruled that the failure-to-accommodate claim was time-barred. The Department partially denied Stancu’s request on August 14, 2019, by granting one Sunday off per month rather than every Sunday. Stancu filed his charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 317 days later, after the applicable 300-day deadline. The court therefore dismissed that claim as untimely.

Retaliation claims

Stancu relied on three alleged protected activities: a November 2018 call to the Commissioner’s office, his July 2019 accommodation request, and his February 2020 statement that he might contact the mayor about the carbon-monoxide situation. The court held that the February statement was not protected activity because it complained about unsafe working conditions, not discrimination based on religion. The court did not decide whether the call or accommodation request qualified as protected activity; assuming they did, it held that the retaliation claims still failed for other reasons.

The court found that the transfer and shielded-status delay could not support retaliation for the same reasons they could not support discrimination. It held that Stancu’s resignation was presumed voluntary and was not an adverse employment action because he provided no evidence supporting constructive discharge. The occasional threats of write-ups were not materially adverse, and Stancu’s testimony attributed them to a supervisor’s desire for more citations rather than retaliation for religious complaints. The rude comments, jokes, and weekly beard photographs likewise did not amount to materially adverse actions, and the comments began before Stancu engaged in protected activity. Although the February 2020 write-up could qualify as an adverse action, Stancu could not show that it was caused by protected activity; his own testimony indicated that it concerned the carbon-monoxide incident rather than his religion.

Hostile work environment claim

To establish a hostile work environment, Stancu had to show that the conduct was objectively severe or pervasive, that he personally experienced the workplace as hostile or abusive, and that the conduct occurred because of a protected characteristic. The court held that he failed to satisfy the objective severity-or-pervasiveness requirement.

The court characterized the carbon-monoxide incidents as nondiscriminatory and the alleged comments as conduct that did not alter the conditions of employment. It found that Stancu’s belief that Sergeant Candia placed the locker note was speculation. The court also held that being told to provide documentation for a beard accommodation was consistent with Department policy and Title VII’s protections. Considering the evidence together, the court found occasional teasing, rude comments, and other alleged conduct insufficient to establish a hostile work environment.

Disposition

Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted the Parks Department’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the Defendant and close the case.