Adams-Flores v. City of New York

Background

Nichole Adams-Flores, an African-American woman and licensed psychologist, worked as a clinical supervisor for the New York City Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC) until February 2016. While pregnant and on bed rest, she requested permission to work from home. She alleged that HHC denied the request, recommended part-time work instead, and failed to respond to alternative accommodation proposals. She later complained to HHC personnel about alleged discrimination and transferred to a position at the Department of Corrections (DOC).

In the DOC position, Adams-Flores continued working with HHC employees Patsy Yang and Ross MacDonald. She alleged that they treated her rudely, excluded her from meetings, withheld information, and blamed her for work that she had not been told about. She brought claims involving discrimination and retaliation under federal law, the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a statute allowing claims for certain violations by state or local officials.

In an earlier ruling, the court dismissed most of Adams-Flores's claims but allowed amendment on several limited issues. The court had already dismissed, with prejudice, her Title VII claims concerning conduct before December 20, 2016, and had dismissed other claims with permission to amend. Adams-Flores filed a Third Amended Complaint, and HHC, Yang, and MacDonald moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Rulings on HHC Claims

The court granted the motion as to Adams-Flores's renewed Title VII claims against HHC. It explained that the earlier ruling had already dismissed with prejudice standalone Title VII claims based on conduct before December 20, 2016. The court also stated that the claims were untimely because Adams-Flores did not file an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge until October 16, 2017, and she had left HHC in February 2016.

The court also dismissed Adams-Flores's renewed NYSHRL discrimination claim against HHC. Although the amended complaint added allegations about employees who were allowed to work from other locations, it did not adequately describe those employees' qualifications, responsibilities, employment histories, or reasons for their requests. The complaint also did not allege that any comparator was pregnant or had been permitted, or had requested permission, to work from home. The court found those allegations insufficient to support a plausible inference of discrimination.

The court dismissed the renewed NYSHRL retaliation claim against HHC. Adams-Flores alleged that the denial of her accommodation request was retaliatory, but the court found that the denial occurred before her complaints to her supervisor and HHC's Equal Employment Opportunity officer. She did not allege a later adverse employment action, and HHC eventually granted the initial accommodation for her final days there.

Rulings on Yang and MacDonald

The court dismissed Adams-Flores's discrimination, retaliation, and aiding-and-abetting claims against Yang and MacDonald under § 1983, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL. For the period when Adams-Flores worked for HHC, the court relied on her failure to allege facts providing minimal support for discrimination or retaliation. For the later DOC period, the court found the comparator allegations even less specific; describing other employees only as being at Adams-Flores's level was not enough to plausibly allege individual discrimination claims.

The court also dismissed the retaliation claims against Yang and MacDonald concerning the DOC period. The specific alleged conduct occurred in January and July 2018, at least two years after Adams-Flores's complaints about the accommodation request. Without direct evidence of retaliatory intent, the court found that this gap was too long to support a causal connection based only on timing.

The court stated that any hostile-work-environment claim against Yang and MacDonald would fail for essentially the same reason: the complaint did not allege enough facts showing that their actions were taken because of a protected characteristic.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the moving defendants' motion in full and dismissed the renewed claims at issue. The court declined to grant Adams-Flores leave to amend again because she had already been given an opportunity to address the pleading deficiencies identified in the earlier ruling.

The court stated that the remaining claims included Adams-Flores's Title VII claims against the City concerning conduct after December 20, 2016; claims against Martin Murphy; NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims against the City, Cynthia Brann, and Jeff Thamkittikasem; and § 1983 claims against Brann and Thamkittikasem. The court directed the remaining defendants to answer within twenty-one days and terminated HHC, Yang, and MacDonald as defendants.