Loth v. City of New York

Background

Margot Loth, an emergency medical technician employed by the New York City Fire Department, sued the City of New York 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. She alleged gender discrimination and retaliation based on events involving Captain Donna Lynn Hannon Tiberi and other FDNY personnel from 2018 through 2020.

Among other allegations, Loth claimed that she received disciplinary notices, was denied or lost overtime opportunities, had her performance evaluation delayed, could not apply for a hazardous-materials instructor position, and was treated less favorably than male employees. She also alleged that she participated as a witness in another employee’s equal-opportunity complaint against Tiberi and later filed her own internal equal-opportunity complaint against Tiberi.

Loth’s disciplinary charges were addressed in a December 19, 2019 stipulation agreement. Under that agreement, she accepted the loss of three days’ pay and admitted guilt concerning one absence-without-leave charge and one radio-unavailability charge. The agreement included a waiver of her right to sue concerning the resolved charges. Loth alleged that she signed under duress.

Legal Standard

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a legal claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, but it does not accept conclusory statements as facts.

Title VII Claims

The court dismissed Loth’s Title VII claims for several reasons.

First, the court held that allegations concerning acts before February 13, 2019, were outside Title VII’s filing period and were not actionable. The court rejected Loth’s argument that the continuing-violation doctrine made those allegations timely. It found that the alleged events were separate, discrete acts and that Loth had not identified an ongoing discriminatory policy or practice connecting them to timely allegations.

Second, the court held that Loth’s waiver of claims concerning the disciplinary charges was enforceable. Although Loth alleged that she signed the stipulation agreement under duress, the court found that she had not plausibly alleged a wrongful threat, that she had no alternative to signing, or that her free will was overcome. The court also noted that she was accompanied by a union representative and did not attempt to repudiate the agreement before filing the lawsuit. The court therefore held that allegations arising from the disciplinary charges and the stipulation agreement were not actionable.

Third, the court held that Loth failed to state a Title VII gender-discrimination claim. It found that she had not plausibly alleged a materially adverse employment action. The court concluded that the delayed evaluation did not prevent her from taking the medic classes because the unresolved disciplinary cases independently made her ineligible, and that the alleged inability to transfer to the hazardous-materials instructor position was not shown to be a material change in her employment. The court also found that the disciplinary charges and alleged loss of overtime did not satisfy this requirement on the facts alleged.

The court separately found that Loth had not plausibly alleged facts supporting an inference that gender motivated the City’s actions. It concluded that the “calendar girl” remark, without more, did not show discriminatory intent. It also found that the alleged male comparators were not shown to be similarly situated in all material respects, including because some had different or unspecified positions, duties, or circumstances.

Fourth, the court dismissed Loth’s Title VII retaliation claim. Although participating in another employee’s equal-opportunity complaint and filing her own complaint could constitute protected activity, the court found that Loth had not adequately alleged that the people responsible for the alleged retaliatory actions knew about that activity before taking those actions, or acted at the direction of someone who knew. The court held that temporal proximity or the possibility that Tiberi saw an overtime request was insufficient to establish the required knowledge.

State and City Claims

After dismissing the Title VII claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Loth’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court stated that judicial economy, fairness, convenience, and respect for state and local courts favored declining jurisdiction. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the Verified Complaint and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion and the case. The Title VII claims were dismissed, and the New York State and New York City human-rights claims were dismissed without prejudice.