Sykes v. New York City Elder Abuse Center At Weilll Cornell Medicine

Background

Terrel Sykes sued Cornell University and Lisa Rachmuth, his former supervisor, alleging race discrimination and a race-based hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He also asserted discrimination and retaliation claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim.

Sykes alleged that Rachmuth questioned his need for medical leave, made comments about his weight, and later became colder toward him. He also alleged that Abigail Nathanson made comments about his appearance, sexual orientation, and race. Sykes further alleged unequal pay, different treatment of Black and white employees, and conduct involving a workplace racial-equity group. These allegations were accepted as true only for purposes of deciding the motion; the court did not find that the alleged conduct actually occurred.

Federal Race-Discrimination Claim

The court held that Sykes did not adequately allege that he experienced a materially adverse employment action because of his race. The court treated his unequal-pay allegation as the only potentially sufficient adverse employment action, but found that Sykes provided too little information about his own position, the work and pay of comparator employees, and the relevant job responsibilities to support an inference of intentional racial discrimination. The court also found that Sykes did not allege that Rachmuth controlled his pay or that the human-resources employee who negotiated his salary acted with discriminatory intent. Because section 1981 requires race to be a but-for cause of the challenged employment action, the court granted the motion to dismiss this claim.

Race-Based Hostile Work Environment

The court also held that Sykes did not adequately allege a hostile work environment based on race. Much of Nathanson’s alleged conduct concerned weight or sexual orientation rather than race, and the court found that the single identified race-related comment was insufficient. The court likewise found that Sykes’s allegations about Rachmuth were either not tied sufficiently to racial intent, not severe or pervasive enough, directed at other employees, or too conclusory. The court concluded that the allegations did not describe a workplace permeated by racial intimidation, ridicule, or insults severe or pervasive enough to alter Sykes’s working conditions.

Employer Liability

The court separately concluded that Cornell could not be held liable on the allegations presented. Sykes did not adequately allege that Nathanson was a supervisor with authority to take tangible employment actions against him. In addition, after Sykes reported Nathanson’s conduct, Cornell investigated her and fired her. The court therefore found that Sykes had not alleged facts showing that Cornell failed to take appropriate corrective action.

State-Law Claims and Leave to Amend

After dismissing Sykes’s only federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to decide related state-law claims in the same case. It dismissed the New York State and New York City claims without prejudice.

The court granted Sykes leave to file another amended complaint even though he had not requested permission to amend. The court stated that he could file a Third Amended Complaint if he could correct the pleading deficiencies identified in the opinion. In its conclusion, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety and gave Sykes thirty days to amend. If he did not file an amended complaint within that period and did not show good cause, the court stated that it would dismiss the section 1981 claim with prejudice and the remaining claims without prejudice.