Myers v. Doherty

Background

Ronald Myers, a former New York City Police Department officer, alleged that Inspector Mary Christine Doherty, Lieutenant Sean Conry, Deputy Inspector James Francis Kobel, Sergeant Richard Beary, and the City of New York discriminated against him because he is African-American. He also alleged retaliation after he objected to race-related comments and treatment. His amended complaint asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The alleged conduct included comments by Doherty in 2005, discipline and performance evaluations before 2018, workplace treatment in 2018, notice of a possible transfer in October 2019, and Myers’s complaint to the NYPD’s Equal Employment Opportunity Division. Myers alleged that he retired in June 2020 rather than accept the possible transfer.

Federal Claims

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. The court treated the well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

The court first dismissed as untimely all federal claims based on conduct before January 11, 2018. Section 1983 claims arising in New York generally have a three-year limitations period. The court rejected Myers’s argument that the earlier events were part of a continuing violation because the alleged incidents were separated by substantial gaps and were discrete acts, including discipline and performance evaluations that Myers knew about when they occurred.

The court also dismissed the federal race-discrimination claim. It held that Myers had not alleged an adverse employment action because the announced transfer never occurred, and he was not demoted or otherwise shown to have experienced a material change in his employment. The court further held that his retirement was not adequately pleaded as a forced resignation because the alleged working conditions were not objectively intolerable enough to amount to a constructive discharge.

Independently, the court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly suggest that the relevant conduct was motivated by race. The bathroom restriction and comments about Myers’s clothing and fundraisers were not explained in a way that connected them to racial discrimination. The allegation that white officers who committed serious misconduct were not transferred or disciplined was also too general because the complaint did not identify them or explain whether they were similarly situated to Myers.

The retaliation claim failed for two separate reasons. Myers did not plausibly allege a timely adverse employment action, and he did not adequately connect the October 2019 possible-transfer notice to his earlier opposition to discrimination. His 2019 Equal Employment Opportunity Division complaint could not support causation because the alleged transfer notice came before that complaint.

The court construed the amended complaint to include a hostile-work-environment claim even though it did not expressly label one. The court dismissed that claim because the alleged bathroom restriction, belittling comment, menial tasks, hostile looks, and ignoring did not plausibly show conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment or establish that the alleged harassment was based on race. The court also noted that the 2005 comments were too old and disconnected from the timely allegations to form part of a continuing course of conduct.

New York City Human Rights Law Claims

After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining New York City Human Rights Law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction allows a federal court to hear related state or local claims, but it is discretionary after all federal claims have been dismissed. The court noted that the New York City law has broader continuing-violation rules and more liberal substantive standards than the federal claims, making it appropriate not to decide those claims in this case.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint’s federal claims. The dismissal of those claims was with prejudice because the amended complaint was Myers’s second complaint and he had not identified a factual basis for fixing the defects. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City Human Rights Law claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions and close the case.