Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P.

Background

Naula Ndugga, a Black woman who worked in Bloomberg L.P.’s media division in New York, alleged that Bloomberg denied her promotions for which she was qualified, paid her less than male colleagues, subjected her to race- and gender-related derogatory conduct and remarks, and retaliated against her after she reported discrimination. The opinion concerns Ndugga’s third amended complaint. The court had already dismissed co-plaintiff Nafeesa Syeed’s claims and had dismissed some of Ndugga’s earlier claims.

Bloomberg moved to dismiss Ndugga’s third amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim.

Title VII claims

The court dismissed Ndugga’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ndugga received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on February 2, 2021, but did not file the third amended complaint until December 10, 2021—more than the required 90 days later.

The court rejected Ndugga’s arguments that the amended complaint should relate back to the original complaint or that the filing deadline should be extended for extraordinary circumstances. The court concluded that the Title VII claims were untimely and granted Bloomberg’s motion to dismiss those claims.

Retaliation claims under New York law

The court held that Ndugga sufficiently pleaded retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Ndugga alleged that she reported pay and treatment disparities to Human Resources and later was assigned undesirable “scraps” of work and denied a raise despite positive performance reviews and raises given to colleagues.

The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to support protected activity, Bloomberg’s knowledge of that activity, conduct that could deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination, and a causal connection between the complaints and the alleged retaliation.

The court also ruled that several other alleged complaints did not qualify as protected activity. These included complaints about an editorial photograph, a colleague’s aggressive response to that complaint, and the lack of coverage of George Floyd’s death. The court further found that Ndugga did not allege retaliatory conduct following her July 2020 call with the Editorial Management Committee. Nonetheless, the Human Resources complaint was sufficient to support the retaliation claims, which may proceed.

Disparate-impact claims

The court dismissed Ndugga’s disparate-impact claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. A disparate-impact claim challenges a facially neutral employment policy or practice that disproportionately harms a protected group.

The court assumed, without deciding, that Ndugga had adequately alleged a relevant policy and a pay disparity. It held, however, that she had not plausibly alleged that Bloomberg’s salary-setting practices caused the disparity. Her allegations cited an industry-wide gender pay gap of 10 to 15 percent but did not allege that Bloomberg’s disparity was greater than the industry-wide disparity or otherwise connect Bloomberg’s practices to the alleged gap.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied Ndugga leave to amend the dismissed claims. It concluded that another amendment of the untimely Title VII claims would be futile and that Ndugga had already had multiple opportunities to plead her disparate-impact claims. The court also noted that most of the retaliation allegations had appeared in earlier complaints.

Judge Gregory H. Woods concluded that Bloomberg’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The motion was granted as to Ndugga’s Title VII claims and her New York disparate-impact claims, and denied as to her retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law.