Abdelal v. Kelly

Background

Mohamed Abdelal, a former New York City Police Department officer, sued former Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly and the City of New York. He alleged discrimination and a hostile work environment based on his Egyptian national origin, Arab ancestry, and Muslim religion. He brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The dispute followed an Internal Affairs Bureau investigation that began after Abdelal, while off duty, visited a correctional facility to seek information from an Egyptian detainee. Abdelal identified himself as a police officer and displayed his police identification without authorization from his commanding officer. The investigation examined whether Abdelal or the detainee had connections to the Egyptian government or terrorism, among other matters. It included background and financial checks, surveillance, controlled calls, and interviews.

The Internal Affairs Bureau concluded that Abdelal did not associate with the detainee and later placed him on Level II Performance Monitoring. The monitoring involved quarterly reviews, monitoring by a performance unit, integrity tests, and placement of the monitoring information in a personnel database. Abdelal testified that his work responsibilities did not change during the investigation and monitoring.

The department also brought disciplinary charges against Abdelal. He pleaded guilty to seven specifications and went to trial on four others. The trial officer found him guilty of failing to properly search a prisoner and falsely telling immigration officials that he needed to interview the detainee as part of an official investigation involving Interpol. The trial officer found him not guilty of the specifications arising from the integrity test. After Commissioner Kelly rejected the recommended penalty, Abdelal rejected a proposed negotiated agreement. He was terminated from the police department on January 29, 2013.

Abdelal relied on evidence that other officers received less severe discipline, statements and materials concerning Muslim communities and radicalization, and the police department’s use of a training video called “The Third Jihad.”

Procedural history and legal standard

After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The court had previously granted that motion in 2017 based on claim preclusion and timeliness. In a prior related proceeding, the Second Circuit remanded the case, concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply to Abdelal’s discrimination claims and that his hostile-work-environment claims were not untimely.

The defendants renewed their motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view the evidence favorably to the party opposing the motion, but a claim must have enough evidence that a reasonable jury could rule for that party.

Discrimination claims

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for discrimination claims under § 1981, Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Under that framework, a plaintiff first must make an initial showing of discrimination. The employer then must identify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, after which the plaintiff must present evidence that the stated reason was a pretext for discrimination. The court noted that the New York City Human Rights Law uses a more lenient standard, but the plaintiff still must show that the unequal treatment was because of a protected characteristic.

The court held that Abdelal’s termination was an adverse employment action. It held, however, that neither the Internal Affairs investigation nor Level II Performance Monitoring was an adverse employment action because Abdelal did not show that those measures unreasonably changed the terms or conditions of his employment. The court emphasized that his work responsibilities remained the same and concluded that the defendants had applied reasonable disciplinary procedures.

The court also held that Abdelal had not shown circumstances supporting an inference of discriminatory intent in his termination. Although he identified eight possible comparators, the court found that he established that only one, Stephen B., was outside his protected group. The court determined that Stephen B. was not similarly situated in all material respects because the officers faced different charges and engaged in different conduct. The court described Stephen B.’s conduct as involving a personal relationship with a criminal and household disputes, while Abdelal’s charges involved an unofficial investigation and falsely claiming to be involved in an official Interpol investigation.

The court therefore held that Abdelal failed to establish a required initial case of discrimination under § 1981, Title VII, and the New York State Human Rights Law. It also held that he had not shown unequal treatment under the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants were granted summary judgment on the discrimination claims.

As an initial matter, the court dismissed Abdelal’s Title VII claims against Kelly because individuals are not subject to liability under Title VII.

Hostile-work-environment claims

For the § 1981, Title VII, and New York State Human Rights Law claims, the court required Abdelal to show that discriminatory conduct because of a protected characteristic was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive workplace. Under the New York City Human Rights Law, he needed to show unequal treatment, although petty, slight, or trivial conduct was not actionable.

The court rejected Abdelal’s hostile-work-environment claims. For the same reasons discussed in connection with discrimination, it found that he had not shown that the investigation or performance monitoring was discriminatory, unreasonable, or motivated by discriminatory hostility. The court also found that Abdelal had not shown that the police department’s report or training video transformed his workplace or resulted in unequal treatment. The court stated that the hostile-work-environment claims must be dismissed and granted the defendants’ motion as to those claims.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. The opinion does not state a separate disposition beyond the specified dismissal of the Title VII claims against Kelly individually and the dismissal of the hostile-work-environment claims.