Hollington v. CDM Federal Programs Corporation

Background

Pertricee Hollington, an African American man and New York resident, worked for CDM Federal Programs Corporation as a project inspector on Federal Emergency Management Agency assignments in Texas and Missouri. He alleged that a coworker racially harassed him, that CDM retaliated after he complained to CDM, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and that CDM later demoted him, denied him promotions and other positions, delayed assigning him work, assigned him to an undesirable location, denied him comparable overtime, made false complaints about his performance, terminated him, and harmed his employment prospects.

Hollington brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York State Human Rights Law. CDM filed a partial motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. CDM also argued that the remaining claims should be dismissed or transferred because the Southern District of New York lacked personal jurisdiction and was an improper venue.

Dismissal of Discrimination Claims

The court dismissed all discrimination claims based on CDM’s alleged failure to promote or hire Hollington. Hollington specifically identified positions in Manhattan and Missouri, but the court found that his allegations about the people selected for those positions were vague and conclusory. He did not identify those individuals or provide facts showing that they were similarly situated to him in all material respects. His allegations about other positions in New York and elsewhere were also insufficiently specific because he did not identify the positions, their responsibilities, or their locations.

The court also dismissed the discrimination claims based on CDM’s failure to assign him work and alleged blacklisting. Although the months without an assignment could qualify as a materially adverse employment action, Hollington did not plead facts supporting a plausible inference that either the lack of work or the alleged blacklisting was racially motivated.

The court stated that the remaining discrimination claims—concerning Hollington’s demotion, assignment to an undesirable job in Missouri, reduced overtime, alleged false complaints, and termination—were sufficiently pleaded either because the court so determined or because CDM conceded their sufficiency.

Dismissal of Retaliation Claims

The court found that Hollington adequately alleged that he engaged in protected activity by complaining about discrimination and filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and that CDM knew about those complaints. The court also found that the alleged failure to promote him to a Program Delivery Manager position and the failure to assign him work could qualify as adverse actions for retaliation purposes.

Nevertheless, the court dismissed the retaliation claims based on those actions because Hollington did not plead facts showing a sufficiently close timing or other evidence connecting them to his complaints. The alleged failure to promote occurred at least several months after his initial complaints, and the failure to assign work occurred about a year later. Hollington did not provide dates for his human-resources complaints, so the court would not assume that those complaints were close enough in time to establish a retaliatory motive.

The court also dismissed the retaliation claims based on rejection from unspecified “other positions” and alleged blacklisting because Hollington did not adequately plead that these events were adverse employment actions. The court stated that the remaining retaliation claims—concerning the demotion, undesirable Missouri assignment, reduced overtime, alleged false complaints, and termination—were sufficiently pleaded under § 1981 and Title VII either because the court so determined or because CDM conceded their sufficiency.

New York State Human Rights Law

The court dismissed all of Hollington’s retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law. It explained that the law generally requires the challenged conduct to occur in New York or to affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment in New York. Hollington performed all of the work described in his complaint in Texas, Missouri, or Austin, and he did not allege that he performed work for CDM in New York. His New York residence, the fact that CDM withheld New York taxes, and the emotional effects he experienced while in New York were not enough to establish the required connection to New York employment.

Although CDM notified Hollington of his termination while he was at his New York residence, the court held that this fact did not establish an impact on employment in New York. The court noted that Hollington’s claims concerning positions in New York might otherwise have supported New York jurisdiction, but those claims were not adequately pleaded and were dismissed.

Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the challenged claims with prejudice. It concluded that further amendment would be futile because Hollington had already amended his complaint three times and had received notice of CDM’s objections to the sufficiency of his promotion, hiring, and New York State Human Rights Law claims.

Transfer

After dismissing the claims concerning New York positions, the court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over CDM in the Southern District of New York and that venue was improper there. CDM was incorporated in Massachusetts and had its principal place of business in Boston. Although it had offices in New York, the sufficiently pleaded claims arose from events in Houston, Texas, or Springfield, Missouri, not from CDM’s New York offices.

The court therefore granted CDM’s motion to transfer the remaining claims to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The clerk was directed to transfer the action, and the order closed the case in the Southern District of New York.