Toussaint v. City of New York

Background

Eddy Toussaint sued the City of New York, the New York City Department for the Aging, Caryn Resnick, Sal Rullan, and unidentified defendants. He alleged that he was not promoted within the Department for the Aging’s Information Technology Unit because he is Black. The complaint asserted claims involving racially unequal treatment, racially unequal effects, conspiracy, and other claims under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.

The court had previously granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim in an order dated June 29, 2020. Toussaint then moved for reconsideration under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 6.3.

Issues and Analysis

Toussaint asked the court to reconsider three aspects of the earlier dismissal.

First, he challenged the dismissal of his Title VII disparate-impact claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court explained that a disparate-impact claim requires a facially neutral employment policy or practice that has a significant unequal effect. Toussaint’s charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleged that his agency selected non-Black employees for career-advancing projects and training. The court concluded that this described a race-biased practice, not a facially neutral one. Because the substance of the charge, rather than its label, controls whether the administrative charge supports the later federal claim, the court found no basis to reconsider the dismissal.

Second, Toussaint challenged the dismissal of certain claims as time-barred. The court upheld its conclusion that the continuing-violations doctrine did not apply. Under the controlling law discussed by the court, a failure to promote is a separate discriminatory act that is not made timely merely because it relates to other acts within a timely charge. The court noted, however, that background evidence from outside the limitations period could still be considered if Toussaint adequately pleaded a failure-to-promote claim.

Third, Toussaint argued that the court should reconsider dismissal of his disparate-treatment claims because exhibits showed that promotions were conditioned on training. The court stated that it had already considered the exhibits and that Toussaint had not shown that it overlooked controlling law or facts. The court also reaffirmed that the complaint did not allege that the person selected for the promotion was unqualified, did not provide the qualifications or examination information for similarly situated Black colleagues, and did not adequately explain how the training was connected to the promotion or whether Toussaint requested training and was denied it.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Analisa Torres denied Toussaint’s motion for reconsideration. The court extended the deadline to file an amended complaint to August 4, 2020 and directed the clerk to terminate the motion at docket entry 67. The opinion states that Toussaint could address the pleading deficiencies in an amended complaint.