James v. Cuny-John Jay College

Background

Terrell James, a maintenance worker in John Jay College’s Facilities Management Department, brought employment-discrimination claims against his supervisors, Neil Stewart and Susan Jeffrey. The surviving claims alleged race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The claims concerned assignments to clean elevator-door tracks, work alone on a ladder more than 20 feet high, and perform repairs that James believed were unnecessary.

James and both defendants identified themselves as African American. Stewart was the department’s Administrative Superintendent until January 7, 2019, when Jeffrey replaced him. James’s claims against Stewart were also affected by the fact that the challenged events occurred after Jeffrey replaced Stewart.

Summary Judgment

The defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure allowing judgment without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over facts that could affect the outcome. The court first held that James’s failure to comply with the district’s factual-statement rule was independently sufficient to grant the motion because he was treated as having admitted the defendants’ material factual statements. The court nevertheless addressed the merits as well.

The court found that James had abandoned claims he did not address in his opposition, including the claim based on cleaning elevator tracks and his federal race-discrimination claim under § 1983. It also found that James had not offered evidence showing that the work assignments were materially adverse employment actions or that they occurred under circumstances suggesting racial discrimination. The work orders assigned tasks but did not require James to use a ladder or particular equipment, and there was no evidence that James or another worker had been denied scaffolding. The record also showed that white workers were assigned to change light bulbs in stairwells with ceilings at least 14 feet high.

For the federal hostile-work-environment claim, the court held that James had not shown conduct severe or pervasive enough to create an abusive workplace, or evidence that the assignments were made because of his race. For the federal retaliation claim, the court held that James had not shown a causal connection between his protected activities and the 2019 assignments. The court also found no evidence that the assignments were materially adverse or that James was treated differently from other workers.

The court granted summary judgment on the parallel New York State claims because the relevant standards were the same as under federal law. It separately analyzed the New York City claims under that law’s broader standards but reached the same result, finding that James had not shown that he was treated less favorably because of discriminatory intent or that the defendants’ conduct was reasonably likely to deter opposition to discrimination. The court did not decide the defendants’ alternative argument that they were protected by qualified immunity because it resolved the § 1983 claims on the merits.

Motion to Amend

James also sought leave to amend his complaint to add a race-discrimination claim based on his assignment to maintain a territory covering five floors. He alleged that a white maintenance worker had received a smaller territory. The court denied the request because the proposed claim was barred by claim-preclusion principles, was untimely after discovery had closed, would prejudice the defendants, and was not shown to have merit. The court also noted that James did not claim either defendant was responsible for assigning him that territory and that the allegedly comparable workers were assigned to older buildings requiring more tasks.

Disposition

Judge Denise Cote granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied James’s motion for leave to amend. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.