Adams-Flores v. City of New York

Background

Nichole Adams-Flores, an African-American woman and former deputy commissioner for the New York City Department of Corrections’ Health Affairs Unit, sued the City of New York and former Department of Corrections colleagues Cynthia Brann, Jeff Thamkittikasem, and Martin Murphy. She alleged race discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and Section 1983, a federal civil-rights law that allows claims against state or local officials for constitutional violations.

Adams-Flores challenged several employment actions, including her salary, exclusion from communications and meetings, denial of additional staff and a driver, restrictions on conference attendance, the handling of her civil-service title and probationary period, and her termination. She also alleged retaliation for filing workplace discrimination complaints and this lawsuit. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asking the court to rule that no reasonable jury could find for Adams-Flores based on the admissible evidence.

Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Adams-Flores’s discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court concluded that she had not provided sufficient evidence that discrimination caused the challenged actions. Among other reasons, she did not provide adequate evidence about supposedly comparable employees, did not show that stated reasons for restricting conferences or denying a driver were pretexts for discrimination, and did not show that the staffing decisions or other challenged conduct were discriminatory.

The court also granted summary judgment on the hostile-work-environment claims. The court said it was unclear whether the operative complaint included such a claim, but held that the claim would fail in any event because Adams-Flores did not show a connection between the workplace conduct and a protected characteristic or evidence that her workplace was permeated by sufficiently severe or pervasive discriminatory conduct.

Retaliation Claims

The court granted summary judgment on retaliation claims concerning the denial of conference attendance, the failure to publish a press release, and an alleged fabricated performance improvement plan. The court found legitimate, non-retaliatory explanations for the conference and press-release decisions and found no evidence that retaliation was the reason for those actions. The parties also identified no evidence establishing the existence or fabrication of the alleged performance improvement plan.

The court denied summary judgment as to Adams-Flores’s Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claims against the Department of Corrections based on three matters: the delay in transferring her civil-service title, the refusal to credit her probationary service and grant her a permanent title, and her termination. The court found enough evidence, including timing, possible departures from policy, and inconsistencies in the explanations offered, for a jury to decide whether retaliation was the required cause of those actions.

The court also denied summary judgment as to Adams-Flores’s New York City Human Rights Law retaliation claims against Brann concerning those same three matters, because the evidence indicated that Brann personally participated in the relevant decisions. The court granted summary judgment on the corresponding claims against Murphy and Thamkittikasem because Adams-Flores did not show that they participated in those decisions.

Section 1983 Claims

The court granted summary judgment on Adams-Flores’s Section 1983 discrimination claims because she had not shown discriminatory intent. It also rejected her Section 1983 retaliation claims based on the conference restrictions, press release, alleged performance improvement plan, and the actions involving the probationary period and termination. For the latter two claims against Brann, the court found no evidence that Brann herself had the required retaliatory motive; Section 1983 does not impose liability on a person merely because other employees may have acted with that motive.

The court denied summary judgment on Adams-Flores’s Section 1983 retaliation claim against Brann based on the delay in transferring her civil-service title. The court found evidence that Brann personally participated in that decision and that her stated reason might have been pretextual, meaning not the real reason for the decision.

Other Orders

The court approved proposed redactions protecting personally identifying information. It required the parties to justify other proposed sealing or redactions on a document-by-document basis or the materials would be unsealed. The court also directed the Clerk to terminate Jeff Thamkittikasem and Martin Murphy as defendants. The surviving retaliation claims were to continue toward pretrial proceedings, and the court directed the parties to confer about settlement.