Balogun v. New York State Division of Human Rights

Background

Abeeb K. Balogun, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR), and former supervisors Gina Martinez, Elizabeth Ortiz-Feliciano, Iris Carrasquillo, Marleny Rubio, William Ploski, and Ali Jafri. He alleged discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as state-law claims.

Balogun self-identified as a Black, Nigerian man. DHR hired him as a Human Rights Specialist subject to a required 52-week probationary period. The parties disputed aspects of his performance, including the number of cases assigned to and completed by him and the performance of proposed comparison employees. DHR gave Balogun feedback about case production, writing, proofreading, and following supervisory direction. After his initial probation period, DHR offered him extended probation instead of terminating him. DHR later terminated his employment, citing continuing problems with writing, following supervisory authority, case production, and judgment in investigations.

Title VII claims

The court granted summary judgment, a decision that ends a claim without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the outcome, on all of Balogun’s Title VII claims.

For the discrimination claim, the court held that the evidence did not support an inference that race, sex, or national origin motivated the termination. Balogun relied principally on alleged differences in treatment between himself and other HRS 1 employees. The court found that his proposed comparison employees were not sufficiently similar in all important respects, particularly because Balogun was on probation and had documented productivity, writing, and conduct issues. The court also found that a recorded conversation with Ploski did not suggest discriminatory treatment. Even assuming Balogun had made an initial showing of discrimination, the court held that he had not produced enough evidence for a reasonable jury to find that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in his termination.

For the hostile-work-environment claim, the court held that the alleged conduct—falsifying or fabricating information, threats, intimidation, misrepresentations, and interference with his work—was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive workplace. Independently, the court found no evidence that the conduct occurred because of Balogun’s race, sex, or national origin. Balogun acknowledged that he never heard his supervisors make statements about those characteristics.

For the retaliation claim, the court held that Balogun had not established the required initial showing because his complaints about unfair treatment did not identify race, sex, or national-origin discrimination. His recorded complaints to supervisors and others did not refer expressly or implicitly to those protected characteristics. The court also held that, even if he had established that initial showing, he had not produced evidence that DHR’s stated performance-based reasons were a pretext for retaliation. The court granted summary judgment to DHR on the retaliation claim.

The court separately granted summary judgment to the individual supervisors on the Title VII discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims because Title VII does not impose liability on individual supervisors or coworkers who were not the plaintiff’s actual employer.

State-law claims

The state-law claims included contract, promissory estoppel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision. The court held that state sovereign immunity barred resolving those claims in federal court against DHR and the individual defendants in their official capacities. As to claims against the individual defendants in their personal capacities, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims after the federal claims were resolved.

Disposition

The defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted as to the Title VII discrimination, hostile-work-environment, and retaliation claims. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice. The clerk was directed to close the motion and the case.