Harris v. State of New York

Background

Evan Harris alleged that he worked in the Office of New York State Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds from 2003 through March 2019. After Robert Tambini became his direct supervisor, Harris asked him to stop making comments and jokes with sexual innuendo. Harris alleged that Tambini continued making inappropriate comments and jokes, excluded him from meetings, reassigned his substantive work, restricted his communications, and otherwise undermined his ability to perform his job. Harris also alleged that Lawrence Schantz sent him daily sex-related jokes, knew about Tambini’s conduct and alleged retaliation, and failed to remedy it. Harris was terminated after meeting with an Office of the New York State Comptroller human-resources supervisor and investigators.

Harris sued the State of New York, the Office of the New York State Comptroller, Schantz, and Tambini. His claims included gender-based hostile-work-environment and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the State and the Comptroller’s Office. He also asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against Schantz and Tambini. The State moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim based on its allegations.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a Title VII claim requires an employer-employee relationship. To plausibly allege that relationship, a complaint must include facts suggesting that the alleged employer exercised direct, obvious, and concrete control over the employee’s day-to-day activities. Courts generally accept factual allegations as true when deciding a motion to dismiss, but they do not have to accept conclusory statements that are unsupported by facts.

The complaint stated that Harris worked in the Comptroller’s Office of Unclaimed Funds as an assistant to the Director of Audits. In the counts section, it also stated generally that the State and the Comptroller’s Office employed Harris under Title VII. The court found that this general statement was insufficient because the complaint did not allege facts showing that the State paid Harris’s wages or controlled his daily duties. Statements in Harris’s opposition brief asserting that the State employed him could not substitute for allegations in the complaint.

The court rejected the State’s alternative argument that it should be dismissed because the Comptroller’s Office was the proper and nonredundant defendant. The court had not determined whether the State was also Harris’s employer for Title VII purposes, and the record did not establish whether removing the State would cause Harris undue prejudice. The court therefore did not dismiss the State on that alternative ground.

Disposition

The court granted the State’s motion to dismiss without prejudice and dismissed Harris’s Title VII claim against the State without prejudice. The court allowed Harris to file an amended complaint within 30 days and directed the Clerk of Court to close the motion. The opinion did not decide the ultimate merits of Harris’s discrimination or retaliation allegations.