Beharry v. City of New York Police Department

Background

Tell Beharry sued The City of New York over alleged race discrimination in employment. The remaining claims were under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court had previously dismissed claims based on events before August 10, 2016, as well as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and retaliation claims under the three discrimination laws.

Beharry alleged that the City discriminated against him through command disciplines, changes to his work shifts, denial of preferred assignments and overtime opportunities, loss of vacation days, a performance evaluation, and other employment-related actions. He compared his treatment with that of officers who, he alleged, were not African American or were Hispanic. The City moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence shows that no reasonable jury could find for the opposing party.

Legal standard

The court applied the burden-shifting framework used for employment-discrimination claims. Under that framework, a plaintiff generally must first show that he belonged to a protected class, was qualified, experienced a materially adverse employment action, and was treated under circumstances suggesting discriminatory intent. The employer may then provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action, after which the plaintiff must present evidence that the stated reason was a pretext, or cover, for discrimination.

The court noted that the New York City law uses more liberal standards than Title VII and the New York State law, although courts commonly apply those standards within the same basic framework.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that many of the alleged actions were not materially adverse under Title VII. Unfavorable schedules and work assignments generally did not meet that standard, and Beharry provided no evidence showing that his shift changes had materially harmful effects. The court also found that his command disciplines and performance evaluation were not shown to have affected promotion, wages, termination, or other ultimate employment decisions. His assertions that the disciplines harmed his career prospects were conclusory and unsupported by evidence.

The court treated the loss of vacation days differently. It held that a jury could reasonably find that losing vacation days was a material loss of benefits and therefore an adverse employment action for purposes of the initial discrimination showing. The court stated, however, that this did not resolve the case because Beharry still had to provide evidence supporting an inference of racial discrimination.

The court found that Beharry had not shown that the officers he identified as comparators were similarly situated in all material respects. Regarding a Caucasian lieutenant involved in the same July 20, 2016 incident, Beharry knew that the lieutenant had also received a command discipline but did not know its substance and offered no evidence that it was less serious. Regarding officers whom Beharry claimed had solicited money from subordinates without discipline, he offered no evidence that they had engaged in the same conduct, that their conduct had been reported to the Internal Affairs Bureau, or that they had not been investigated or disciplined. Other alleged comparisons likewise lacked supporting evidence or involved time-barred events.

The court also held that, even assuming Beharry had established an initial discrimination case, the City had offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions. Those reasons included Beharry’s conduct, alleged violations of the New York Police Department’s rules and policies, and the City’s application of departmental discipline procedures. The court found that Beharry had not produced admissible evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that those reasons were pretexts for racial discrimination.

Disposition

The court granted The City of New York’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Beharry’s Title VII claims. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, enter judgment, and close the case. Judge Alison J. Nathan signed the order on October 19, 2020.