Adeniji v. New York City Department of Finance

Background

Oluseyi Adeniji alleged that the New York City Department of Finance employed him as a tax auditor from August 2014 until July 2015. He alleged that his supervisor and other employees treated him less favorably, that his supervisor made racially offensive statements, that she criticized his work and gave him unfavorable evaluations, and that the City terminated his employment. He also alleged that security guards escorted him from the workplace after the termination.

Adeniji later filed administrative discrimination complaints. The Harman Firm represented him before the New York City Commission on Human Rights. After the Commission closed the administrative case, the firm sent Adeniji a disengagement letter and advised him that he could seek a new attorney. Adeniji then sued the City and The Harman Firm. His second amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against the City, along with a claim described as negligent legal procedure or omission against The Harman Firm.

Title VII race-discrimination claim

The court applied the standard for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. At this stage, the court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true and asked whether they plausibly supported an inference of discrimination.

The court found that Adeniji met the minimal pleading requirement for his Title VII race-discrimination claim. The court relied on allegations that his direct supervisor called him “inferior,” said that “African-Americans are lazy,” criticized his performance, placed him on a performance improvement plan, and took other adverse actions before his termination. The court also considered allegations that the supervisor treated female Asian-American employees more favorably and that Adeniji was the only African-American male in his department. The City’s motion to dismiss this claim was DENIED. The court did not make a final finding that discrimination occurred; it allowed the claim to proceed beyond the pleading stage.

Title VII sex-discrimination claim

The court noted uncertainty about whether Adeniji had completed the required administrative process for his sex-discrimination claim. It nevertheless considered the claim because failure to complete that process does not eliminate the court’s power to hear a Title VII claim. The court concluded that the allegations—that female Asian-American employees received favorable treatment and that security guards escorted Adeniji from the building because of stereotypes about him as a tall Black man—did not plausibly support sex discrimination. The City’s motion to dismiss the sex-discrimination claim was GRANTED.

Section 1981 claim

The court held that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 does not provide a private cause of action against state actors. It explained that a claim alleging that a municipality violated rights protected by Section 1981 must instead be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal statute permitting claims against persons acting under state authority.

The court considered whether to construe Adeniji’s Section 1981 claim as a Section 1983 claim, but concluded that the claim still failed. Adeniji did not allege that the challenged conduct resulted from a municipal policy or custom, as required for a Section 1983 claim against a municipality. The City’s motion to dismiss the Section 1981 claim was GRANTED.

Claim against The Harman Firm and arbitration

The court treated Adeniji’s allegations against The Harman Firm as a possible legal-malpractice claim, which is a state-law claim. The court found no federal-question jurisdiction because the claim did not arise under federal law. It also found no diversity jurisdiction because the pleadings did not establish that Adeniji and The Harman Firm were citizens of different states, and the firm submitted a declaration stating that its partners were citizens of New York.

The court further held that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction because the malpractice dispute concerned the firm’s later representation of Adeniji before the City Commission, while the federal claims concerned Adeniji’s earlier employment at the Department of Finance. The court therefore found no common set of operative facts connecting the two matters. The Harman Firm’s motion to dismiss the purported malpractice claim was GRANTED. Because the claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the court did not address the firm’s alternative arguments for dismissal or its request to compel arbitration. The motion to compel arbitration was DENIED as moot.

Disposition

The City’s motion to dismiss the Title VII racial-discrimination claim was DENIED. The City’s motion to dismiss the sex-discrimination and Section 1981 claims was GRANTED. The Harman Firm’s motion to dismiss the malpractice claim was GRANTED, and its motion to compel arbitration was DENIED as moot. The City was ordered to answer the remaining Title VII racial-discrimination claim by February 28, 2022. The opinion did not address the New York State or New York City Human Rights Law claims because Adeniji did not include them in his second amended complaint.