Bernardi v. New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision…

Background

Romano Bernardi alleged that the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) and Daniel Rushia discriminated against him based on his national origin and retaliated after he complained. Bernardi alleged that coworkers, including Rushia, used Italian slurs and made comments about his immigrant status; that DOCCS assigned less overtime to immigrant employees; that Rushia falsely accused him of misconduct; and that DOCCS terminated him after sending a disciplinary notice to an old address.

Bernardi asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York’s Human Rights Law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also asserted a state-law claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and sought punitive damages. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), which addresses subject-matter jurisdiction, and 12(b)(6), which addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Rulings

Official-capacity claims. The court dismissed Bernardi’s claims against Rushia in his official capacity. It held that the state and its instrumentalities are generally protected from damages suits in federal court by sovereign immunity, and that New York had not waived that protection for these claims.

New York Corrections Law § 24. The court held that Rushia was protected by Section 24 immunity for state-law claims concerning overtime allocation and his report of misconduct that resulted in the April 2018 disciplinary notice. Those acts fell within the scope of his supervisory employment. The court held, however, that Rushia was not entitled to Section 24 immunity at this stage for the alleged discriminatory comments or the alleged false criminal complaint, because those acts could fall outside the scope of his employment.

Hostile work environment. The court denied the motion to dismiss Bernardi’s hostile-work-environment claims under Title VII and New York’s Human Rights Law. Bernardi alleged that the discriminatory comments and slurs occurred repeatedly throughout his employment, which lasted from 2002 through at least 2018. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage to plausibly show a workplace permeated by discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. The court declined to decide Rushia’s qualified-immunity defense to this claim because the defendants had not meaningfully applied that defense to the claim.

Discrimination. The court dismissed Bernardi’s discrimination claims based on his termination and overtime assignments. It found that his allegations that he was terminated because of his national origin were conclusory and did not connect the alleged discriminatory comments to the termination decision. The complaint also did not identify sufficiently comparable employees outside Bernardi’s protected group who received more favorable overtime treatment. The court therefore dismissed the claims concerning discriminatory termination and overtime assignments.

Retaliation. The court allowed Bernardi’s Title VII retaliation claim against DOCCS to proceed. Bernardi alleged that he served DOCCS with a notice complaining of national-origin discrimination on May 22, 2018, and that DOCCS issued the June 2018 disciplinary notice less than a month later. The court found that the timing, together with the alleged irregularities in sending the notice to an old address and failing to provide related documents before termination, was enough at this stage to support a possible causal connection.

The court dismissed Bernardi’s retaliation claim against Rushia under New York’s Human Rights Law. Bernardi did not provide specific dates for most complaints made to Rushia, and the 2014 administrative complaint occurred more than four years before the alleged retaliatory conduct. The court held that the allegations did not plausibly establish the required connection between protected complaints and Rushia’s alleged actions.

Intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court dismissed Bernardi’s claim against Rushia for intentional infliction of emotional distress. It held that the alleged slurs, discriminatory comments, and false criminal accusations did not meet New York’s demanding requirement that conduct be so extreme and outrageous that it goes beyond all possible bounds of decency.

Section 1983 claim. Section 1983 provides a claim against a person who, while acting under state authority, deprives someone of federal rights. The court held that Bernardi’s Section 1983 equal-protection claim could not proceed on discrimination or retaliation theories because the related New York Human Rights Law claims against Rushia did not state a claim. The court allowed the Section 1983 hostile-work-environment claim to proceed to discovery.

Punitive damages and amendment. The court denied the defendants’ request to dismiss Bernardi’s punitive-damages claims as premature. It also directed that Bernardi could seek leave to file a second amended complaint by June 8, 2021. The court stated that it could dismiss inadequately pleaded claims with prejudice if he did not make that application.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas concluded that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion, and the court scheduled a conference for July 14, 2021.