Kitani v. City Of New York

Background

Mikiko Kitani, a former employee of New York City Transit and a member of District Council 37 Local 3652, alleged that Transit employees discriminated against her, retaliated against her, interfered with her medical leave, denied her workplace opportunities and benefits, and treated her differently from male coworkers. She also alleged that Local 3652 failed to represent her in grievance proceedings. Kitani proceeded without a lawyer after her former counsel withdrew.

Her Second Amended Complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, and New York law. The New York City defendants had been dropped from the Second Amended Complaint. The remaining defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim and, in some circumstances, whether the court has authority to hear it.

Title VII and ADA claims

The court held that most of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory conduct was not timely exhausted through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Kitani’s first right-to-sue letter, dated October 29, 2015, could not support this lawsuit because she did not sue within the required 90-day period. The court accepted her later right-to-sue letter, dated August 10, 2021, but concluded that only conduct occurring after July 24, 2019, could be considered exhausted.

The only potentially timely conduct identified was Transit’s rejection of Kitani’s requests for unpaid leave in July and September 2019. The court concluded that these allegations did not plausibly show sex discrimination because Kitani did not allege whether she qualified for the leave, why Transit denied it, or whether male coworkers received more favorable treatment. The allegations also did not plausibly show retaliation because Kitani did not explain how the denial materially harmed her or allege facts showing that retaliation was the reason for the denial. The court dismissed all of Kitani’s Title VII claims.

The court applied the same timing analysis to the ADA claims and dismissed them because Kitani did not provide facts supporting a plausible inference that Transit’s denial of unpaid leave was motivated by disability discrimination.

FMLA claim against Byford

The court dismissed Kitani’s Family and Medical Leave Act claim against Andy Byford, identified as Transit’s president. The complaint alleged only that Byford knew about Kitani’s serious medical condition. The court found that this did not plausibly allege that Byford had substantial control over Kitani’s leave rights. The FMLA claims against Transit, Costa, Cassella, and Syldor were not challenged in the motion and remained.

Equal Pay Act and civil-rights claims

The court dismissed the Equal Pay Act claim because Kitani made only a general allegation that she was paid less than male comparators. She did not provide facts describing the jobs’ duties, content, or working conditions sufficient to show that the work was substantially equal.

The court dismissed the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims against Transit and Byford. Kitani alleged generally that they failed to train and supervise employees, but she did not allege supporting facts, Byford’s personal involvement in a constitutional violation, or a Transit policy or custom that caused such a violation. The § 1983 claims against Costa, Cassella, and Syldor remained because the Transit defendants did not move to dismiss those claims.

The court also dismissed the claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985. Section 1981 concerns race discrimination, and Kitani did not allege racial discrimination. Her § 1985 conspiracy allegations did not provide facts showing an agreement or meeting of the minds among the defendants, or details about the alleged conspiracy.

Emotional-distress and defamation claims

The court dismissed Kitani’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. It concluded that the alleged assignment of out-of-title work, denial of opportunities and benefits, and hostile comments did not amount to the extreme and outrageous conduct required under New York law.

The court dismissed the defamation and slander claims concerning statements that Kitani abused leave benefits and committed sick-leave fraud. The statements were subject to a qualified privilege for communications among people sharing a workplace interest. Kitani’s allegation that the statements were made with actual malice was conclusory and was not supported by facts showing that Costa knew the statements were false or seriously doubted their truth.

Union, contract, privacy, and New York Labor Law claims

The court dismissed any federal duty-of-fair-representation claim against Transit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because public employees cannot bring such claims under the federal labor statutes at issue. The court concluded that Transit is treated as a political subdivision for this purpose.

The court considered the state duty-of-fair-representation claim against Local 3652. Earlier alleged refusals to file grievances were time-barred under New York’s four-month limitations period. The only potentially timely allegation was Local 3652’s failure to act on Kitani’s July 2019 leave-related grievance request. The court held that merely alleging that the union took no action, without facts suggesting arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad-faith conduct, did not state a claim. The § 1985 and duty-of-fair-representation claims against Local 3652 were dismissed.

The court dismissed Kitani’s breach-of-contract claim against Transit because she had not plausibly alleged that Local 3652 breached its duty of fair representation, a required part of the asserted hybrid contract claim. The court expressly dismissed that claim with prejudice because amendment would be futile.

The court dismissed the invasion-of-privacy claim with prejudice because New York does not recognize the asserted common-law privacy claim. The court also dismissed the New York Labor Law claim without prejudice because Kitani did not identify the statutory provision supporting it and her allegations were too vague. The dismissal without prejudice allowed her to replead that claim in a proposed third amended complaint.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court found that Kitani’s proposed constructive-discharge claim was timely and properly exhausted. It granted her permission to file a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint containing that claim, but stated that the claim could proceed only against Transit, not against individual defendants. The court did not dismiss Kitani’s New York State or New York City human-rights claims at that point. It also noted that the FMLA claims against Transit, Costa, Cassella, and Syldor remained.

Judge Broderick granted the Transit defendants’ motion to dismiss and Local 3652’s motion to dismiss. The order dismissed the specified claims, including the contract and invasion-of-privacy claims with prejudice and the New York Labor Law claim without prejudice, and directed Kitani to file her motion for leave to amend by April 24, 2022.