Toussaint v. City of New York

Background

Eddy Toussaint, an African-American employee of the New York City Department for the Aging, alleged that he was denied or delayed promotion within the department’s Information Technology Unit. He claimed that he and other African-American employees were denied training opportunities provided to non-African-American employees and that promotion practices had a disproportionate effect on African-American employees. Toussaint brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Toussaint took a promotion examination in 2016 and placed first. He alleged that he was not selected for available Computer Specialist (Software) positions and that lower-scoring, non-African-American employees received those positions. He was eventually promoted in September 2019. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim.

Procedural rulings

The court considered only the second amended complaint, not allegations Toussaint cited from an earlier amended complaint. It dismissed all claims against the Department for the Aging because that department was not a suable entity. It also dismissed all claims against Jack Rizzo and Kamlesh Patel because Toussaint had not served them and had not shown good cause or provided a reason for extending the service deadline.

The court dismissed Toussaint’s Title VII disparate-impact claim because he had not presented that claim to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court also ruled that certain older allegations were time-barred: Title VII disparate-treatment allegations before June 16, 2017; claims under § 1981 accruing before December 27, 2014; claims under § 1983 accruing before December 27, 2015; and New York State Human Rights Law claims accruing before December 27, 2015. The court held that the continuing-violation rule allowed older New York City Human Rights Law disparate-treatment allegations to remain part of an alleged discriminatory pattern, and that the hostile-work-environment claims were not time-barred on the allegations presented.

Because Toussaint did not respond to the defendants’ arguments concerning his §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986 claims, the court deemed those claims abandoned. The court also granted the motion to dismiss the § 1983 municipal-liability claim against the City. It found that Toussaint had not plausibly alleged an official City policy or shown that Sal Rullan had final policymaking authority.

Claims allowed to continue

The court denied the motion to dismiss Toussaint’s Title VII, § 1983, and New York State Human Rights Law disparate-treatment claims. It concluded that Toussaint plausibly alleged that a promotion delay of approximately two years caused harm, including lost wages and reduced retirement benefits. It also found that the alleged denial of training could qualify as an adverse employment action because the training affected promotion and career opportunities.

The court further found a plausible inference of racial discrimination. Toussaint alleged that a provisional employee who was not eligible for the relevant examination received a position, that other employees received training opportunities he did not receive, and that Rullan denied training requests made by Toussaint and two other African-American employees while approving similar training for others. The court therefore denied the motion as to the federal and state disparate-treatment claims. It also concluded that the related New York City Human Rights Law disparate-treatment claim survived.

Claims dismissed

The court granted the motion to dismiss the Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims. It found that the alleged conduct—including failures to promote and train—was not sufficiently severe or pervasive under those laws. The court denied the motion as to the New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claim because that law has a lower standard and Toussaint plausibly alleged that similarly situated non-African-American employees were treated better.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the New York State Human Rights Law disparate-impact claim. Although Toussaint identified possible practices involving subjective evaluations, training notices, and promotion procedures, the statistical materials did not plausibly connect those specific practices to racial disparities at the Department for the Aging.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion. It granted the motion as to the Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law disparate-impact and hostile-work-environment claims, the §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986 claims, the § 1983 claim against the City, and all claims against Jack Rizzo, Kamlesh Patel, and the Department for the Aging. The balance of the motion was denied.