Nunez v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Yolanda Nunez, a Hispanic woman, worked for the New York City Housing Authority as a housing exterminator from January 2012 until her termination on September 6, 2017. She alleged discrimination and a hostile work environment based on sex, as well as retaliation after she filed a workplace-discrimination complaint. Her claims arose under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Nunez identified comments allegedly made by James Barksdale, who she said acted as a supervisor, and Michael Baker, an administrator. She said Barksdale called her “baby” and made a sexual remark about her to a coworker. She also claimed that Baker referred to her as “the girl,” although she did not personally hear Baker use that phrase. Nunez further asserted that male exterminators were not disciplined for some conduct for which she received counseling memoranda. She received three memoranda concerning travel-swipe procedures, her uniform and daily location log, and allegedly falsified work orders. The Housing Authority began processing a termination request before Nunez filed her discrimination complaint, and her termination took effect on September 6, 2017.

Federal Claims

The Housing Authority moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court held that Nunez’s federal claims under § 1983 had been abandoned because her opposition papers did not address them or the Housing Authority’s argument that she lacked evidence establishing municipal liability. The court also ruled that summary judgment would be proper even if the claims had not been abandoned.

Because the defendant was a municipal entity, Nunez had to satisfy the requirements for municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services. She needed evidence that her alleged constitutional injury resulted from an official policy, actions by an authorized policymaker, a persistent and widespread practice, or a failure to train. The court found no genuine dispute on that issue. The Housing Authority’s written policies prohibited discrimination and retaliation; Nunez did not show that the alleged conduct resulted from a failure to train or a widespread custom known to policymakers; and Barksdale and Baker were not final policymakers whose individual actions could, by themselves, establish municipal liability.

State and Local Claims

After granting summary judgment on the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court dismissed those claims without prejudice. The opinion states that Nunez was free to pursue them further in state court.

Disposition

Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted the Housing Authority’s motion for summary judgment as to Nunez’s federal claims and dismissed Nunez’s remaining state and local claims without prejudice. The court directed the clerk to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case.