Shelton J. Haynes and Gretchen K. Robinson v. Executive Chamber for the Office…

Background

Shelton J. Haynes and Gretchen K. Robinson, both identified in the complaint as African American, were respectively the Chief Executive Officer and President and the Vice President and General Counsel of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC). They sued the Executive Chamber for the Office of the Governor of New York, RIOC, and individual defendants under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The claims against Ben Fhala alleged race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under Section 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The complaint described Fhala’s communications with RIOC personnel and outside parties, his criticisms of the plaintiffs, his alleged efforts to reduce Haynes’s financial approval authority, and his referral of concerns about a RIOC contract to state investigative and ethics offices.

The court had previously granted a motion to dismiss claims against the Executive Chamber, Roger Maldonado, Tania Dissanayake, Ruthanne Visnauskas, Diana Lopez, and Alejandro Valella. Fhala answered the Second Amended Complaint before filing a motion labeled as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Because he had already answered, the court treated the motion as one for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). The standard was the same as for a failure-to-state-a-claim motion: the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and considered whether they plausibly stated claims.

Federal Section 1983 Claims

The court held that the complaint adequately alleged that Fhala acted under color of state law as a RIOC board member. It nevertheless dismissed all three types of federal claims.

For race discrimination, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not plausibly allege facts supporting an inference that Fhala acted because of their race. Allegations involving treatment by other people, especially conduct occurring before Fhala joined the RIOC board, could not establish Fhala’s personal discriminatory intent. The allegations involving Fhala also did not identify similarly situated comparators whom he treated more favorably. The Section 1983 discrimination claim therefore failed.

For retaliation, the court considered the plaintiffs’ allegations that Fhala excluded them from communications, acted in a rude or condescending manner, sought a board meeting to reduce Haynes’s approval limits, initiated an investigation, and criticized them publicly. The court held that these allegations did not show an adverse employment action—that is, conduct that could dissuade a reasonable worker from reporting discrimination. The communications, criticisms, and alleged rude behavior were treated as minor workplace slights. The proposed reduction in Haynes’s approval authority never occurred, and the investigation allegedly initiated by Fhala was not tied to discipline. Because the complaint did not allege an adverse employment action, the court did not reach whether there was a causal connection to protected activity.

For the hostile-work-environment claim, the court held that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to make the workplace objectively abusive. The court also held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that Fhala’s conduct was motivated by racial hostility. The plaintiffs’ reliance on alleged discriminatory treatment by other people did not establish Fhala’s personal discriminatory purpose.

The court dismissed the federal Section 1983 claims against Fhala with prejudice. It noted that the plaintiffs had filed three complaints and had not requested another opportunity to amend.

State and City Claims

The plaintiffs also asserted claims against Fhala under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. After dismissing all federal claims against Fhala, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those state-law claims. Counts Six through Eleven were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court.

Disposition

The court granted Fhala’s motion. All federal Section 1983 claims against him were dismissed with prejudice. Counts Six, Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and Eleven were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court. The court stated that RIOC was the only remaining defendant and ordered the plaintiffs and RIOC to submit a joint proposed case-management plan and scheduling materials by November 3, 2025.