Makhsudova v. City of New York

Background

Sadokat Makhsudova, a Muslim woman originally from Uzbekistan, alleged that the City of New York and NYPD officers discriminated against her because of her religion, sex, and national origin. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Her allegations included being moved to less desirable duties, being denied time off for Muslim holidays, being required to use personal time to break her fast during Ramadan, being subjected to comments about her Uzbek background, being assigned uncomfortable work arrangements, being placed on probation after an arrest for petit larceny, and being terminated from the NYPD.

The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. The court treated the Amended Complaint’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Threshold Rulings

The court exercised supplemental jurisdiction, meaning it retained authority over the related state and city-law claims because certain federal claims survived. It also held that Title VII does not impose liability on individual supervisors or coworkers who were not the plaintiff’s actual employer. The court therefore dismissed all of Makhsudova’s Title VII claims against the individual defendants.

Disparate-Treatment Claims

The court rejected or limited Makhsudova’s disparate-treatment theories based on her termination, probation, verbal abuse, transfer to “assist duty,” denial of a transfer, and denial of later lunch breaks during Ramadan. Among other reasons, the court found insufficient allegations connecting her termination or probation to a protected characteristic, found no adequate information showing that Officer Guerrero was similarly situated, and found the allegations about several other employment actions too vague or insufficiently adverse under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The court nevertheless held that Makhsudova plausibly alleged religious discrimination based on the denial of requests for time off for religious holidays. The court accepted, for purposes of the motion, the theory that refusing Muslims time off for religious holidays while allowing non-Muslim employees such time off can support a discrimination claim without a separate showing of a materially adverse employment action. Those Title VII claims survived against the City. The corresponding New York State Human Rights Law claims survived against the City, Inspector Juan Duran, and Administrative Lieutenant Kenny Kong.

Under the broader New York City Human Rights Law standard, which requires allegations that the plaintiff was treated less well because of discriminatory intent, the court also allowed religious-discrimination claims against the City, Duran, and Kong. It separately allowed a national-origin discrimination claim against the City and Sergeant Lael Pendleton based on Pendleton’s repeated comments about Makhsudova’s Uzbek background and his use of a demeaning reference instead of her name.

Hostile-Work-Environment Claims

A hostile-work-environment claim alleges that discriminatory conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make the workplace abusive. The court found that allegations about the Ramadan lunch-break denials, uncomfortable male partners, “unworkable” assignments, and probation after the larceny arrest were too vague or insufficiently severe and pervasive to support such a claim.

The court did find that Makhsudova plausibly alleged a hostile work environment based on Pendleton’s repeated comments that her people lived in mountains and ate horse meat, his horse-like noises directed at her, and his repeated use of the phrase “the first Uzbek female” instead of her name. Those allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Title VII claim survived against the City; the New York State Human Rights Law claim survived against the City and Pendleton. The analogous New York City Human Rights Law claim survived against the City and Pendleton.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied the motion as to Makhsudova’s Title VII claims against the City for religious discrimination and hostile work environment, and granted it as to her Title VII claims against Duran, Kong, Alfredo, Pendleton, and Cordero. It denied the motion as to her New York State Human Rights Law religious-discrimination claims against the City, Duran, and Kong, and granted it as to the remaining defendants. It denied the motion as to her New York City Human Rights Law religious-discrimination claims against the City, Duran, and Kong and her national-origin claims against the City and Pendleton, and granted it as to the remaining defendants. It denied the motion as to her New York State and New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims against the City and Pendleton, and granted it as to the remaining defendants.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the Clerk to terminate Sergeant Ruiz Alfredo and Sergeant Fernando Cordero as defendants. The remaining defendants were directed to answer the Amended Complaint by June 8, 2022.