Adams-Flores v. City of New York

Background

Nichole Adams-Flores, an African-American woman and licensed psychologist, previously worked as a clinical supervisor for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). While pregnant and on bed rest, she asked to work from home. She alleged that HHC official Patsy Yang denied the request even though non-black clinical supervisors had been allowed to work remotely at alternate clinical locations. Adams-Flores alleged that she consequently reduced her hours and complained to Human Resources.

Adams-Flores then became the New York City Department of Correction’s (DOC) Deputy Commissioner for Health Affairs, where she had to work with HHC. She alleged that Yang and HHC Chief Medical Officer Ross MacDonald excluded her from meetings and communications, and that DOC officials—including Martin Murphy—undermined her authority, withheld resources, monitored her activities, and treated her less favorably than white deputy commissioners. She also alleged that she was terminated after filing workplace complaints.

She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Rulings

The court granted the motion to dismiss all Title VII claims as untimely based on the complaint’s allegation that Adams-Flores filed suit 94 days after receiving her right-to-sue letter. The court granted leave to amend so she could correct the alleged receipt date. The court also dismissed with prejudice Title VII claims based on conduct occurring before December 20, 2016, because those claims were outside the applicable filing period.

The court dismissed Adams-Flores’s claims against the DOC because the agency was not a separately suable entity. It dismissed all Section 1981 claims because Section 1983 provides the federal damages remedy for claims against state actors based on rights protected by Section 1981. It also dismissed Section 1983 claims against individual defendants in their official capacities as duplicative of the claims against the City.

The court dismissed Adams-Flores’s New York City Human Rights Law claims against HHC and any Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim as abandoned because she did not respond to the defendants’ arguments concerning those claims.

The court dismissed claims against HHC based on conduct after Adams-Flores moved to the DOC because HHC was not her employer during that period and the complaint did not plausibly allege that HHC and DOC were a single or joint employer. The court also dismissed claims based on her earlier HHC employment because the complaint did not provide enough detail about the alleged comparators or facts supporting an inference that discrimination or retaliation motivated HHC’s conduct.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the remaining claims against Yang and MacDonald because they were not Adams-Flores’s supervisors and the complaint did not adequately allege their individual liability for employment discrimination. The court denied the motion as to Murphy. It held that the allegations that Murphy reduced Adams-Flores’s responsibilities, denied her resources, directed a subordinate to monitor her activities, and denied her a driver provided enough factual support at the pleading stage for claims under Section 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The court dismissed Adams-Flores’s Section 1983 municipal-liability claim against the City. It held that the complaint did not plausibly allege a City policy or custom of discrimination, a failure-to-train policy that caused her injury, or that the individual defendants had authority to make the relevant City personnel rules.

Leave to Amend and Remaining Claims

The court granted leave to amend only to address the defective Title VII filing-date allegation, the HHC claims for the period before February 2016, and the claims against Yang and MacDonald. Adams-Flores was required to file an amended complaint addressing only those defects within 30 days.

If she did not amend, the defendants were directed to answer the remaining claims within 45 days. The remaining claims included Adams-Flores’s claims against Murphy, her New York State and New York City Human Rights Law claims against the City, Cynthia Brann, and Jeff Thamkittikasem, and her Section 1983 claims against Brann and Thamkittikasem. The clerk was directed to terminate the DOC, Yang, and MacDonald as parties.