Vucinaj v. City of New York

Background

Marash Vucinaj, who identified as a white male of Albanian ethnicity and national origin, worked for the New York City Police Department (NYPD) from 1994 until his service retirement. He held several positions, including Captain, Executive Officer, and Commanding Officer. He alleged that the NYPD and the City discriminated against him based on race, color, sex, national origin, and religion, including by denying him promotions and overtime and subjecting him to a hostile work environment.

Vucinaj also described comments on a public website operated by two active NYPD members, including remarks about English proficiency, Asian accents, and Albanian identity. He reported some of the comments to the NYPD Equal Employment Opportunity office. He filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 10, 2018, and later applied for promotion to Deputy Inspector in November 2018. He began the action without a lawyer, but counsel appeared before his deposition and the summary-judgment motion. He confirmed that he was withdrawing his retaliation claims.

Claims and legal standards

The court construed the amended complaint as asserting failure-to-promote and hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, along with a denial-of-overtime claim. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is granted when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about an important fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The court held that the NYPD was not a suable entity and granted summary judgment to the NYPD on all claims. The City was the proper entity for claims involving the NYPD. The court also granted summary judgment to the defendants on the § 1981 claims because that statute did not provide a separate private cause of action against state actors in this case, and Vucinaj had not alleged those claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Failure-to-promote claims under Title VII and state law

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law failure-to-promote claims. Title VII limited the claim to alleged failures to promote occurring on or after June 14, 2017, while the state-law claim was time-barred to the extent it was based on conduct before April 10, 2015.

Regarding Vucinaj’s 2018 application for Deputy Inspector, the court assumed for purposes of analysis that he had made the initial showing required for a discrimination claim. The defendants provided legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting him: he did not receive a recommendation from his Bureau Head, and his disciplinary history was a factor in the promotion process. The court found that Vucinaj had not presented enough evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin, or religion motivated the decision. The court also stated that generalized allegations about promotions to positions for which Vucinaj did not apply did not support a viable claim on this record.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Although Vucinaj testified that he subjectively experienced the workplace as hostile, the alleged incidents occurred sporadically over approximately seven years and were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish an objectively hostile work environment under the federal and state standards.

The court also found insufficient evidence that the City had acquiesced in discriminatory comments for purposes of the New York City Human Rights Law. The court noted that the Equal Employment Opportunity office had taken corrective action regarding website comments, including having offensive material removed.

Overtime claim

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on Vucinaj’s denial-of-overtime claim under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Vucinaj offered no evidence that race, color, sex, national origin, or religion played a role in the denial of overtime. Instead, he suggested that the denial was retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct, but the retaliation claims had been withdrawn and were not considered in the opinion.

Disposition

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—meaning jurisdiction over a related state-law claim after the federal claims were resolved—over Vucinaj’s New York City Human Rights Law failure-to-promote claim. That claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was otherwise granted. The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, close the motions, and close the case. Judge Schofield signed the opinion and order.