Munjal v. Emirates
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:21-cv-08401
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Munjal v. Emirates, Judge Engelmayer dismissed pre-July 1, 2018 NYSHRL claims and denied dismissal of NYCHRL claims.
Rajeev Munjal’s employment-discrimination claims against Emirates. The ruling removes the specified pre-July 1, 2018 claims under the NYSHRL from the case but allows the corresponding NYCHRL claims to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
What happened
In Rajeev Munjal v. Emirates, Rajeev Munjal claimed that Emirates discriminated against him based on his Indian national origin and disability under New York State and New York City laws. He alleged that he was repeatedly denied promotion and additional pay while performing the duties of a higher-level position.
Emirates asked the court to dismiss claims based on conduct occurring before July 1, 2018, arguing that those claims were filed too late. Munjal did not oppose dismissal of those claims under the New York State Human Rights Law, but argued that the New York City Human Rights Law allowed the earlier conduct to be considered as part of an ongoing pattern of discrimination.
Judge Engelmayer granted the motion to dismiss the NYSHRL claims to the extent they were based on conduct before July 1, 2018, but denied the motion to dismiss the corresponding NYCHRL claims. The court also noted that earlier conduct could potentially be used as background evidence for timely claims, and that Emirates’s separate request to remove the jury demand was moot.
The detailed version
- Munjal v. Emirates · No. 1:21-cv-08401
- Paul Engelmayer
- Jan. 24, 2022
Background
Rajeev Munjal sued Emirates under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), and the New York Equal Pay Act. He alleged race or national-origin and disability discrimination. Munjal worked for Emirates from 2012 until he resigned on April 16, 2021. He alleged that, after he transferred to New York City, he repeatedly performed the duties of the Regional Finance and Accounting Manager position on an acting basis without receiving the position permanently or receiving comparable compensation.
The complaint alleged that decisionmaker Kroemer repeatedly refused to promote Munjal to the permanent position, including in 2017, 2018, and 2019. It also alleged that Doersam referred to Munjal’s health when discussing whether he should receive the position or higher compensation. Munjal was eventually appointed permanent Regional Finance and Accounting Manager in July 2020, but allegedly remained at his previous grade and salary. He resigned in April 2021.
Emirates removed the case from New York state court to federal court and moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss claims based on conduct occurring before July 1, 2018. Emirates also moved to strike the jury demand, but that request became moot because Munjal agreed that the case would not be tried to a jury.
Limitations issue under the NYSHRL
The court explained that the NYSHRL generally has a three-year limitations period. It also explained that, under the governing rule, discrete employment decisions such as refusals to promote generally are not treated as timely merely because they are part of a continuing pattern if they occurred outside the limitations period.
Munjal did not oppose dismissal of his NYSHRL claims based on conduct before July 1, 2018. The court treated those claims as abandoned and granted Emirates’s unopposed motion to dismiss them. The court separately rejected Emirates’s argument that evidence of all pre-July 1, 2018 conduct was automatically barred. Earlier conduct could be relevant background evidence for timely claims, subject to the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court said it was too early to decide the ultimate admissibility of that evidence.
Limitations issue under the NYCHRL
The court held that the NYCHRL applies a broader continuing-violation rule than the NYSHRL. Under that rule, otherwise untimely discrete acts may remain actionable when related acts continue into the limitations period and together are alleged to form a discriminatory policy or practice.
The court identified several alleged acts before July 1, 2018, including the failure to provide compensation comparable to the acting position, rejection of Munjal’s applications for the permanent position, and the hiring of another person instead. It also identified related alleged acts after that date, including additional refusals to promote or compensate Munjal and his removal from the acting position. The court found that the allegations sufficiently connected the earlier and later conduct, particularly because the complaint alleged that Kroemer made the promotion decisions during both periods.
The court rejected Emirates’s argument that Munjal needed to plead detailed information about comparators or his qualifications at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Those matters could be addressed through discovery and potentially at summary judgment or trial. The court therefore denied Emirates’s motion to dismiss the NYCHRL claims based on conduct before July 1, 2018.
Disposition
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the motion to dismiss the NYSHRL claims to the extent they were based on conduct occurring before July 1, 2018, and denied the motion to dismiss the corresponding NYCHRL claims. The court directed that discovery continue under the case-management plan and closed the pending motion. The opinion’s conclusion addressed these NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims; it did not state a separate disposition of any New York Equal Pay Act claim.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.