Allen v. New York City Department of Education

Background

Hepzibah Allen, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, the New York City Department of Education, and Richard Forman. She alleged federal, state, and local employment-discrimination claims based on race. The defendants previously moved to dismiss Allen’s first amended complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court granted that motion without prejudice, allowing Allen to file another complaint.

Allen then filed a second amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss it under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

New allegations

The second amended complaint was substantially the same as the first amended complaint, except for two additions. First, Allen alleged that the defendants engaged in a “pattern or practice of discrimination,” referring to the Department of Education’s workforce and a separate government lawsuit against the Department. Second, she alleged that, on October 23, 2019, a student overheard Assistant Principal Vera Leykina yelling that she was tired of Allen talking about “BLACK HISTORY” and needed a counselor to replace Allen.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that an individual plaintiff who is not bringing a class action cannot use “pattern or practice” as an independent method of proving liability under Title VII. An individual plaintiff may use evidence of broader discrimination to support an individual claim, but still must plead the elements of that claim. The court construed Allen’s reference to the government lawsuit as an attempt to allege discriminatory intent, but found that the reference did not explain how the separate case showed discriminatory intent toward Allen.

For a Title VII discrimination claim, the court stated that Allen had to allege that she was a member of a protected class, qualified for the position, suffered an adverse employment action, and had facts suggesting discriminatory motivation. The court found that Allen still had not alleged an adverse employment action. It also found that the pattern-or-practice allegations did not plausibly suggest discriminatory motivation.

The court separately considered the alleged statement by Assistant Principal Leykina. It found no allegation that Leykina was a decision-maker concerning Allen’s employment, that decision-makers knew about or encouraged the statement, or that the statement was connected to an employment decision. The court therefore found that the statement did not support an inference of discriminatory motive.

The court also rejected the hostile-work-environment claim. A hostile work environment requires conduct that is objectively severe or pervasive, subjectively perceived as hostile or abusive, and connected to the plaintiff’s protected status. The court found that the single alleged statement—heard by a student rather than directly by Allen—was insufficient, even when considered with a conversation alleged in the first amended complaint.

The court noted that the claims identical to those in the first amended complaint were dismissed for the reasons stated in its earlier opinion. That earlier opinion had also dismissed the City of New York, claims based on conduct before December 1, 2017, and state and local discrimination claims for the reasons described there.

Disposition

The court held that the second amended complaint did not cure the pleading defects identified earlier. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, the second amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice, and the Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants, close pending motions, and close the case.