Daniel v. City of New York

Background

Amechi Daniel alleged that he experienced national-origin discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment while employed by the City of New York’s Administration for Children’s Services. He brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Daniel alleged that his supervisor, Devon Gayle, denied him overtime opportunities that were given to Brigitte Grant, a non-Nigerian coworker. He alleged that he lost approximately $30,000 in overtime income during 2017 through 2019. He also alleged that Gayle made comments about Nigerians and Africans, criticized him after he complained about overtime distribution, and retaliated after Daniel complained internally and filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The City moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court treated the complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion, but it did not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

Federal discrimination claim

The court dismissed Daniel’s Title VII national-origin discrimination claim. It held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that national origin was a motivating factor in the denial of overtime.

The court found that several allegations about Gayle’s comments were too general and conclusory. It also found that two allegedly offensive comments about Africans were not tied closely enough to the overtime decisions. The complaint did not allege that those comments were made in connection with the overtime denials or near the time of those decisions.

The court also found that Daniel had not provided enough information to show that Grant was similarly situated to him in all materially relevant respects. The complaint did not describe the number or timing of Grant’s overtime requests, her qualifications or availability, or other circumstances needed to compare her treatment with Daniel’s. The court noted that Daniel alleged that he was often denied overtime, rather than that every request was denied, and that the complaint identified a possible non-discriminatory explanation for reduced overtime: the backlog of cases had decreased.

Federal retaliation claim

The court also dismissed Daniel’s Title VII retaliation claim. The court accepted for purposes of the motion that Daniel had engaged in protected activity by complaining about alleged unlawful employment practices and that denial of overtime could be an adverse employment action. But it found that the complaint did not plausibly connect Daniel’s complaints to the later overtime denials.

According to the court, the complaint did not allege facts showing that the denials began because of Daniel’s complaints, did not identify statements linking the denials to those complaints, and did not allege timing close enough to support a causal connection. The court also found that a June 2018 warning that Daniel could face discipline if he continued speaking about discrimination was followed by no specifically alleged overtime denial during the rest of that year.

Other claims and disposition

The court noted that Daniel had withdrawn his Title VII hostile-work-environment claim because he had not included that claim in his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge. The court also stated that Daniel appeared to have abandoned his claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City by failing to address the City’s argument that he had not adequately alleged the required municipal-policy claim.

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over Daniel’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court dismissed those remaining claims without prejudice because the federal claims had been dismissed at the threshold and the state and city laws use standards that differ from the federal standards.

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss the federal claims with prejudice because the Second Amended Complaint was Daniel’s third complaint and he had not identified a factual basis for fixing those claims. It dismissed the New York State and New York City claims without prejudice, directed the clerk to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.