Donzo v. City of New York

Background

Mohammed Donzo, a Black male and former New York City Police Department officer, alleged employment discrimination and due-process violations against the City of New York, former Police Commissioner James P. O’Neill, Police Commissioner Dermot P. Shea, and Sergeant Allison Mullen. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Donzo alleged that Mullen investigated an off-duty incident involving his brother in 2016 and made a racial slur and threatened to have him fired. He alleged that Mullen conducted the investigation unfairly because of racial animus. Donzo also alleged unfair treatment during a departmental hearing in 2017. The hearing officer recommended that he be dismissed from the police department, and Commissioner O’Neill approved that recommendation on March 15, 2018.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On that type of motion, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true but requires facts showing that the claims are legally plausible.

Claims Against O’Neill and Shea

The court dismissed all claims against O’Neill and Shea. The complaint did not allege that Shea personally participated in any conduct. Its only allegation about O’Neill was that he approved the hearing officer’s recommendation that Donzo be dismissed. The court explained that individual liability under the federal civil-rights statute and the state and city human-rights laws generally requires personal involvement in the alleged discriminatory or unconstitutional conduct.

The court also found that Donzo abandoned the claims against O’Neill and Shea by failing to oppose the defendants’ arguments for dismissing those claims.

Claims Against Mullen

The court granted the motion to dismiss the claims against Mullen under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law because they were barred by the applicable three-year limitations periods. The alleged discriminatory investigation occurred in 2016 and ended no later than December 2017, while Donzo filed this action on January 25, 2021.

The court rejected Donzo’s argument that the continuing-violation rule extended the filing period. That rule can delay the limitations period when a plaintiff alleges an ongoing discriminatory practice and at least one related discriminatory act within the filing period. The complaint did not allege that Mullen participated in Donzo’s 2018 termination or committed any discriminatory act on or after January 25, 2018.

The court separately dismissed Donzo’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because that statute does not provide a separate private cause of action against state actors. The court stated that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for the asserted § 1981 rights against state governmental actors.

Claims Against the City

The court dismissed Donzo’s federal § 1983 claim against the City. A municipality cannot be held liable merely because one of its employees allegedly committed misconduct. Instead, a plaintiff must plead a claim under the rule commonly called municipal, or Monell, liability by alleging that an official policy or custom caused the denial of a constitutional right. The court found that the complaint lacked the required allegations, and noted that Donzo had previously disclaimed bringing a municipal-policy claim. The court also found that Donzo abandoned this claim by failing to address the defendants’ argument.

The court dismissed the § 1981 claim against the City for the same reason it dismissed the § 1981 claim against Mullen: § 1981 does not provide a separate private cause of action against state actors.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Donzo’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law against the City. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to decide related state-law claims. The court declined to use that authority after dismissing all federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in part. It dismissed all claims against O’Neill, Shea, and Mullen, and dismissed all federal claims against the City. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims against the City.

The court allowed Donzo to seek leave to replead only for the limited purpose of alleging discriminatory conduct by Mullen within the limitations period in support of the § 1983 claim. Any request had to identify the allegedly timely conduct and include a proposed amended complaint. The court did not permit Donzo to seek leave to amend the other claims because it found amendment would be futile.