Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene
Natasha Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, et al.
- Rearden
- 1:24-cv-02020
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Itwaru v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, Judge Rearden granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ dismissal motion.
Natasha Itwaru and the named defendants. Itwaru’s specified failure-to-promote claims were not dismissed; other claims could be amended or repleaded as stated, while her Section 1981, Title VII, and Americans with Disabilities Act claims were dismissed with prejudice.
What happened
Natasha Itwaru sued the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and several of its employees in an employment discrimination case. The court reviewed a magistrate judge’s recommendation after Itwaru said she would not object to it.
The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The court did not dismiss Itwaru’s failure-to-promote claims against the Department, Bella Morrow, Althea Jackson, Jose Jimenez, Anita Richichi, Monica Pollack, and Renee Noel. It allowed Itwaru to amend her other claims and to replead a claim under a federal civil-rights law, but dismissed her claims under Section 1981, Title VII, and the Americans with Disabilities Act with prejudice.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden adopted Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron’s recommendation after finding no clear error and noting that Itwaru’s failure to object waived further judicial review.
The detailed version
- Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene · No. 1:24-cv-02020
- Rearden
- Sept. 5, 2025
Background
Natasha Itwaru brought an employment discrimination case against the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) and DOHMH employees Anita Richichi, Barbara Glove-Cox, Monica Pollack, Althea Jackson, Bella Morrow, Jose Jimenez, Judouane Lazarre, and Renee Noel. After Itwaru filed an amended complaint, the defendants moved to dismiss it under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron issued a Report and Recommendation advising that the motion be granted in its entirety except for Itwaru’s failure-to-promote claims against DOHMH, Morrow, Jackson, Jimenez, Richichi, Pollack, and Noel. He also recommended that Itwaru receive leave to amend other claims and leave to replead a claim under Section 1983, a federal civil-rights statute. He recommended no opportunity to amend the Section 1981, Title VII, and Americans with Disabilities Act claims because, as described in the recommendation, amendment would be futile.
Review of the Recommendation
The parties were warned that failing to object within 14 days would waive objections and prevent appellate review. Itwaru withdrew her request for more time and stated that she did not intend to object. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed portions. The court found no clear error and described the recommendation as well reasoned and supported by the facts and law.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The motion was granted except as to Itwaru’s failure-to-promote claims against DOHMH, Morrow, Jackson, Jimenez, Richichi, Pollack, and Noel.
The court also granted Itwaru leave to amend all claims except her Section 1981, Title VII, and Americans with Disabilities Act claims, which it dismissed with prejudice. The court granted leave to replead a Section 1983 claim. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the defendants’ motion and supporting filing.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.