Johnson v. City of New York

Background

Jason Johnson, an African-American firefighter, sued the City of New York, Brian Smith, and Jason Ribisi. He asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal civil-rights statute known as Section 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged race discrimination, discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation, and retaliation.

Johnson alleged that, while serving in the Fire Department’s Special Operations Command Squad 18, he was singled out for unusual and humiliating drills. He also alleged that coworkers made racist and homophobic comments, circulated altered images and videos, and that Ribisi sexually assaulted him. Johnson further alleged that Smith told him to request a transfer because Smith’s personnel were not comfortable with him, after which Johnson was transferred back to his prior ladder company. Johnson alleged that later transfer requests were denied in retaliation for filing a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. For this motion, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Johnson’s favor.

Claims Treated as Abandoned

Johnson did not respond to the defendants’ arguments seeking dismissal of all retaliation claims, punitive-damages claims, claims against Smith and Ribisi in their official capacities, and the claim seeking to hold Ribisi directly liable in his individual capacity rather than as an aider and abettor. The court treated those claims as abandoned and dismissed them with prejudice.

Section 1983 Claim Against the City

The court dismissed Johnson’s Section 1983 claim against the City. Under the rule governing municipal liability, a city can be held responsible only when an alleged constitutional violation resulted from a city policy or custom and the city acted with the required level of fault.

Johnson alleged that the City allowed Special Operations Command captains to choose squad members based on subjective criteria, which allegedly caused a disproportionate exclusion of Black firefighters. The court held that Johnson did not plausibly allege that the City acted with deliberate indifference to the known or obvious discriminatory consequences of that practice. The court also held that Smith’s alleged decision to transfer Johnson could not represent official City policy because Smith was not alleged to have final policymaking authority over personnel decisions. The Section 1983 claim was dismissed.

Title VII Claims

The court dismissed Johnson’s Title VII race-discrimination claim concerning his transfer from Special Operations Command. Johnson alleged that he was singled out for unusual drills, but he did not allege that similarly situated white firefighters were not subjected to those drills. The court noted that a white firefighter also performed unusual drills with Johnson on Christmas Day. The court also found that the alleged racist comments during a water drill were made nearly seven months before the transfer and, as alleged, were not enough to support an inference of discriminatory intent.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Johnson’s Title VII claim that his transfer was based on perceived sexual orientation. Johnson alleged numerous homophobic comments by coworkers and an alleged sexual assault. He also alleged that Smith said his personnel were not comfortable with Johnson. The court held that Johnson plausibly alleged that Smith knew the coworkers’ discomfort was connected to their belief that Johnson was gay and that this belief played at least some part in the transfer decision.

New York State and New York City Claims

The court dismissed Johnson’s New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims insofar as they were based on alleged racial discrimination in his transfer. It did not dismiss the corresponding claims based on perceived sexual orientation discrimination.

The court also dismissed the aiding-and-abetting claims against Smith and Ribisi only insofar as they were based on the alleged racial discrimination in Johnson’s transfer. The court denied dismissal of the related aiding-and-abetting claims based on perceived sexual orientation discrimination.

Disposition

The court stated that all of the dismissals were with prejudice because Johnson had already been given an opportunity to amend his complaint. It granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The case was scheduled to proceed to an initial pretrial conference on May 22, 2020.