Williams v. City of New York

Background

Davelle Williams, a corrections officer who had been promoted to Corrections Captain, sued the City of New York and the New York City Department of Correction. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the amended complaint, Williams’s supervisor refused to give her a Security Captain Post after another warden had awarded it to her. Williams alleged that the supervisor favored male captains. Williams later suffered an on-the-job injury that temporarily prevented her from typing or writing and placed her on medically monitored light duty. She also contracted COVID-19 and took leave. After she filed an internal equal-employment-opportunity complaint and took coronavirus-related leave, she alleged that supervisors changed her schedule, threatened or imposed consequences for sick leave, distributed awards to employees who did not call out sick, and issued her “chronic papers.”

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On such a motion, the court accepts well-pleaded allegations as true but requires facts supporting a plausible claim for relief.

Claims Against the Department of Correction

The court dismissed all claims against the Department of Correction with prejudice. Applying New York City Charter section 396 and related precedent, the court held that City departments, unlike the City itself, lack the capacity to be sued. The Clerk was directed to terminate the Department of Correction as a defendant.

Sex-Discrimination Claims Against the City

Williams withdrew her race-discrimination claim. The court dismissed her Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law sex-discrimination claims. For her disparate-treatment claim, the court found that the amended complaint did not allege that Williams was qualified for the Security Captain Post, did not provide enough detail to show that losing the post was a materially adverse employment action, and did not plausibly connect the decision to her sex. The court also dismissed her sex-based hostile-work-environment claim because the complaint did not identify comments or other conduct sufficiently connected to sex or gender, or conduct severe or pervasive enough to alter her working conditions.

Disability Claims Against the City

The court dismissed Williams’s disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The allegation that she suffered an on-the-job injury, without further detail, did not plausibly show a physical or mental impairment. Her COVID-19 diagnosis also did not state a disability claim because she did not allege symptoms or impairments resulting from COVID-19 or identify a major life activity that she could not perform because of it.

Retaliation Claims

The court dismissed Williams’s Americans with Disabilities Act retaliation claim because she did not identify protected activity under that statute. Her internal complaint alleged race and sex discrimination, not disability discrimination.

The court held that Williams adequately stated retaliation claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The internal equal-employment-opportunity complaint was protected activity under those laws. The complaint also alleged that the employer knew about it and that Williams later received “chronic papers,” which could discourage a reasonable worker from making a discrimination complaint. The court found the timing between the complaint and the chronic papers sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to support a possible causal connection.

The court also held that Williams adequately stated a Family and Medical Leave Act retaliation claim. She alleged that she took two weeks of paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and then received chronic papers because of her extended absence. The court found those allegations sufficient at this stage and declined to consider a Department of Correction policy offered by the defendants because the complaint did not refer to that policy.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Williams’s request to amend was granted, provided that any amended complaint was filed within 30 days. If she chose not to amend, the City was required to answer the surviving claims within 21 days after receiving notice of that decision. The Clerk was also directed to close the motion.