Farooq v. City Of New York

Background

Umer Farooq, a Muslim, Pakistani-born man, worked for the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation at Harlem Hospital Center. He alleged that his superior, Hinnah Farooqi, and other defendants discriminated against him and other Pakistani Muslim pharmacists based on national origin, religion, and age. He also alleged that defendants retaliated after he complained internally about discriminatory practices and after he reported expired medications and pharmacy regulatory problems.

Farooq asserted claims involving procedural and substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment; retaliation for speech under the First Amendment and the New York Constitution; discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, Section 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and corresponding New York laws; and administrative claims under state and city law. Defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss the entire lawsuit.

Federal Constitutional Claims

The court dismissed Farooq’s due-process claims because he did not identify a protected property or liberty interest that was taken from him. The court relied on his continued pay and the later restoration of the wages withheld during his initial suspension. The court also held that his substantive due-process claim was based on conduct covered by his separately alleged First Amendment and equal-protection claims.

The court dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claim because Farooq’s reports about expired medication and pharmacy compliance were made as part of his official job responsibilities. Under the applicable rule, public employees generally do not speak as private citizens when making statements required by their jobs, even when the subject concerns public safety.

Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

The court dismissed the disparate-treatment claims under Title VII, Section 1983, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It found that several alleged actions—such as criticism, a less favorable but still satisfactory evaluation, and mocking Farooq’s spelling—were not materially adverse employment actions. The court did not decide whether assigning him as Clinical Supervisor of the Day or suspending him without pay could qualify as materially adverse actions because Farooq did not plead facts supporting an inference that those actions were discriminatory.

The court also found that Farooq did not adequately identify similarly situated employees who were treated more favorably. His allegation that a less senior non-Pakistani pharmacist was not asked to surrender office keys did not provide enough information to show that the employee was similarly situated in all important respects. The court treated the Section 1981 claim as a claim under Section 1983 because the court stated that Section 1981 does not provide a separate damages remedy against state actors.

The hostile-work-environment claims were dismissed because the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive and was not adequately connected to race, national origin, or religion. The court identified allegations including derogatory language, a denial of religious accommodations, and one instance in which Farooqi mocked Farooq’s spelling, but found those allegations insufficient.

The Title VII retaliation claims were also dismissed. The court identified Farooq’s January 2019 internal complaint as the only protected activity adequately alleged. It held that the approximately five-month gap between that complaint and the alleged retaliatory actions, without additional facts such as defendants referring to the complaint, was insufficient by itself to establish a causal connection.

State and City Claims

The court exercised its authority to hear state-law claims that used the same standards as the federal claims. It dismissed the New York Constitution free-speech claim under the same reasoning used for the First Amendment claim and dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law claims under the same reasoning used for the federal discrimination and retaliation claims.

The court declined to hear Farooq’s claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, Section 75-b of the New York Civil Service Law, and Section 12-113 of the New York City Administrative Code. It concluded that those claims involved different or developing state-law standards and local interests better addressed by state courts.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed all federal claims and the claims under the New York Constitution and New York State Human Rights Law with prejudice. The remaining state and local claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling them in state court. The court declined to grant leave to amend because Farooq had already amended his complaint, had not requested another amendment, and had not indicated that additional facts could cure the stated deficiencies. The Clerk was directed to close the case.