Adenji v. New York State

Background

Oluseyi Adeniji, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York State Office of the State Comptroller under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleged that the agency failed to hire him for a State Program Examiner position because he is African-American. The agency moved for summary judgment, which asks the court to rule before trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the outcome.

Magistrate Judge Barbara C. Moses recommended granting the agency’s motion. Adeniji objected, arguing that he met the job requirements, that the interview process reflected racial bias, and that the magistrate judge improperly relied on findings from an investigation by the New York State Division of Human Rights. Judge Engelmayer reviewed the objections and adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Adeniji could not establish the basic elements of a Title VII discrimination claim. Although Adeniji initially received a score of 100 on his application, the agency’s human-resources review reduced his verified score to 90. Under the Civil Service “Rule of Three,” an applicant generally could be hired only with a verified score of 100, unless all interested applicants with scores of 100 declined the position. The court concluded that Adeniji therefore could not show that he was eligible for the position and could not establish a required part of his initial discrimination case.

The court also rejected Adeniji’s argument that requiring a writing sample showed discriminatory intent because English was his second language. The court found no evidentiary basis for that assertion, noted that Adeniji had been told in advance that a writing sample would be required, and stated that each applicant hired for the Newburgh office during the relevant period supplied one.

Adeniji also relied on alleged comments about the racial makeup of the job location and an expectation that he would be Asian or Japanese. The court noted that Adeniji had not mentioned those allegations in his summary-judgment papers and that the magistrate judge had treated them as abandoned. Even considering them, the court found the account unclear, the comments unattributed and ambiguous, and the evidence insufficient to permit a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the interviewers acted with discriminatory intent. The court also found it proper to consider the Division of Human Rights’ findings as one part of the evidence, rather than giving those findings preclusive effect.

Finally, the court found no clear error in the magistrate judge’s conclusion that the agency had offered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not hiring Adeniji and that Adeniji had not shown those reasons were a pretext for race discrimination. The stated reasons included frequent job changes, significant inconsistencies between two versions of his resume, and a poor writing sample.

Disposition

Judge Engelmayer accepted and adopted Judge Moses’s July 21, 2021 Report and Recommendation. The court granted the Office of the State Comptroller’s motion for summary judgment and directed the clerk to terminate that motion.