Ayyaz v. New York Police Department

Background

Huma Ayyaz alleged that she was sexually harassed by Andrew Thaler and Rohit Singh while working as an unpaid auxiliary police officer for the New York City Police Department. The amended complaint described an August 2017 incident in which Thaler and Singh allegedly drove Ayyaz to an unlit alley, locked the vehicle doors, and engaged in unwanted conduct, including Thaler rubbing her arm and Singh asking whether Thaler wanted to “do it” in the vehicle or outside. Ayyaz alleged that she later developed post-traumatic stress disorder.

Ayyaz asserted discrimination claims based on race and sex under Section 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Title VII. In the court’s March 31, 2021 ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court dismissed most of Ayyaz’s claims, including all claims against Singh, but allowed Ayyaz’s Section 1983 claim against Thaler to proceed.

Motion for reconsideration

Thaler moved for reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 6.3. Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available to correct a clear error, prevent manifest injustice, or address an intervening change in controlling law or newly available evidence. A party seeking reconsideration must show that the court overlooked controlling law or material facts that could have changed the result. A reconsideration motion is not a chance to repeat arguments already rejected or present new arguments that could have been raised earlier.

Thaler argued that the court had applied the wrong legal framework to Ayyaz’s Section 1983 claim and to his qualified-immunity defense. Qualified immunity can protect government officials from civil damages when their conduct did not violate a clearly established statutory or constitutional right, or when it was objectively reasonable for the official to believe the conduct was lawful. Thaler contended that Ayyaz’s rights were not clearly established because she was an unpaid volunteer rather than a salaried government employee.

The court found that Thaler had already made essentially the same argument in his motion to dismiss. The court had considered and rejected it when it held that Ayyaz’s employment status did not control whether Thaler was entitled to qualified immunity and that she had a clearly established constitutional right to be free from sexual harassment and race and sex discrimination.

Thaler also raised new theories in the reconsideration motion. He argued that the alleged unwanted touching should be analyzed under substantive due process or state tort law rather than the Equal Protection Clause, that a hostile-work-environment standard would apply if the claim proceeded to discovery, and that Ayyaz had not alleged race discrimination. The court held that these arguments were not proper grounds for reconsideration because Thaler had not raised them in the earlier motion and offered no excuse for that omission.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied Thaler’s motion for reconsideration. The order did not change the earlier decision granting the motion to dismiss in part and denying it in part. The court stated that the case remained referred to Magistrate Judge Netburn for general pretrial management.