Harris v. NYC Human Resources Administration

Background

Mary L. Harris, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York, the NYC Human Resources Administration (HRA), and HRA Commissioner Steven Banks. She alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law.

Harris alleged that after she reported coworkers’ supposed workplace rule violations and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, her supervisor criticized and disciplined her, reassigned responsibilities, and tried to pressure her to retire. She also alleged that she was demoted in 2018 and transferred to another HRA location in June 2019. Harris further alleged that she had painful knee arthritis and that the HRA failed to accommodate her by moving her to a workplace closer to her home, although she acknowledged that she never requested an accommodation.

Timeliness

The court held that Harris filed her Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint on July 26, 2019, so discrete discriminatory or retaliatory acts occurring before September 28, 2018 were outside the applicable 300-day period. The court would not consider those earlier acts for her discrimination and retaliation claims. It did allow earlier conduct to be considered as part of her hostile-work-environment claims because those claims involve repeated conduct and at least some alleged acts occurred within the filing period.

Federal discrimination and retaliation claims

The court interpreted Harris’s Title VII claim as alleging sex discrimination because the complaint referred to sexual topics, including an accusation that she was not wearing a bra and a coworker’s statement calling her “a man with two balls.” The court dismissed the Title VII sex-discrimination claim because Harris did not allege facts connecting her demotion or transfer to her sex.

The court dismissed the age-discrimination claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because Harris offered only a conclusory allegation that her demotion was part of an effort to make her retire. She gave no facts showing that the demotion or transfer was motivated by her age. The court also dismissed the disability-discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the complaint did not allege that Harris’s knee condition played a role in the decision to demote or transfer her.

The court dismissed Harris’s Title VII retaliation claim. Her May 2017 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint preceded her demotion by seventeen months and her transfer by more than two years. The court found that these time gaps, without additional facts showing a connection, did not plausibly suggest that the demotion or transfer occurred because Harris had complained about unlawful conduct.

The court also dismissed the Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act hostile-work-environment claims. It found that the alleged sex-based comments were isolated and not sufficiently severe or pervasive. Although the allegations about retirement comments, working conditions, workload, warnings, and assignments could support an inference of age discrimination, the court held that they did not show the level of severity and repeated conduct required for a hostile work environment. The court stated that any hostile-work-environment claim based on disability would also fail for the same reason.

Failure to accommodate

The court granted dismissal of Harris’s Americans with Disabilities Act failure-to-accommodate claim. It was unclear whether her arthritis substantially limited a major life activity enough to qualify as a disability under the statute. Even assuming that it did, the court held that Harris had not plausibly alleged that the defendants knew she had a disability covered by the statute. She alleged that she used a cane and told HRA managers that she was in physical pain, but she did not request an accommodation.

State and city claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Harris’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law. It therefore dismissed those claims as well.

Disposition

Judge John P. Cronan granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without prejudice to Harris filing a third amended complaint. The court allowed her to replead any claims, including the state-law claims. The third amended complaint had to be filed by September 27, 2021. If Harris did not file it by that date and could not show good cause, the court stated that it would direct the Clerk of Court to close the case.