Quinones v. New York City
- Lewis Liman
- 1:19-cv-05400-LJL-VF
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Quinones v. New York City, Judge Liman granted dismissal of three claims with prejudice and one without prejudice, allowing amendment of the latter.
Anibal K. Quinones’s hostile-workplace, free-speech, retaliation, and Equal Protection Clause claims were affected. The first three were dismissed with prejudice, while the equal-protection claim was dismissed without prejudice and could be repleaded within 60 days.
What happened
In Quinones v. New York City, Anibal K. Quinones challenged a policy that allegedly prevented him and other Hispanic inmates from speaking Spanish while working in a detention-center kitchen. He asserted hostile-workplace, free-speech, retaliation, and Equal Protection Clause claims.
No party objected to a magistrate judge’s recommendation that the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss be granted. The court found no clear error and agreed that the hostile-workplace, free-speech, and retaliation claims should be dismissed with prejudice. It dismissed the equal-protection claim without prejudice because the allegations did not sufficiently show race- or nationality-based treatment or discriminatory intent, rather than a language-based policy.
Judge Lewis J. Liman adopted the recommendation and granted the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss with the stated limitations. Quinones may file an amended complaint within 60 days; otherwise, the court will dismiss the complaint and close the case.
The detailed version
- Quinones v. New York City · No. 1:19-cv-05400-LJL-VF
- Lewis Liman
- Oct. 3, 2022
Background
Anibal K. Quinones brought claims concerning conditions at the Metropolitan Detention Center. His second amended complaint alleged that a work supervisor prevented him and other people of Hispanic descent from communicating in Spanish while working a kitchen shift. Quinones alleged that he believed the supervisor was discriminating against him because of his nationality and race. The opinion also identifies hostile-workplace, free-speech, and retaliation claims.
On July 26, 2022, Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo recommended granting the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss the hostile-workplace, free-speech, and retaliation claims with prejudice and the Equal Protection Clause claim without prejudice. Neither side filed objections. Because there were no objections, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error.
Equal Protection analysis
The court explained that Hispanic people are a protected class for equal-protection purposes. But a rule barring inmates from speaking Spanish could be based on language—English-speaking versus non-English-speaking people—rather than on race or national origin. Language alone does not identify a protected class.
To state an equal-protection claim based on the alleged rule, Quinones needed additional facts showing either that the rule actually targeted race or nationality, such as allowing non-Hispanic inmates to speak other non-English languages, or that the facially neutral rule was adopted with an intent to discriminate against a protected class. The court found Quinones’s allegations of discriminatory intent conclusory and therefore insufficient. It dismissed the Equal Protection Clause claim without prejudice so that he could plead additional facts showing race- or nationality-based differential treatment or discriminatory intent by the supervisor or another defendant.
Ruling
Judge Liman found no clear error in the recommendation, clarified the reason for dismissing the equal-protection claim, adopted the Report and Recommendation, and granted the defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss. The hostile-workplace, free-speech, and retaliation claims were dismissed with prejudice. The Equal Protection Clause claim was dismissed without prejudice. Quinones was given 60 days to file an amended complaint consistent with the order. If he did not do so, the court stated that it would dismiss the complaint and close the case.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.