Williams v. New York City Housing Authority

Background

Gina Williams sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and several NYCHA employees, alleging retaliation, a hostile work environment, and race- and gender-based discrimination under federal and state law. In a March 2021 opinion, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on nearly all claims. Summary judgment is a decision that resolves a claim when the court determines that the evidence does not present a legally sufficient dispute for trial. The court left certain retaliation claims against NYCHA based on an alleged comment by Hearing Officer Fredrika Wilson during a June 28, 2017 local disciplinary hearing.

The hearing arose from two charges of incompetence or misconduct based on alleged performance problems. Williams was represented by a union representative under a collective bargaining agreement between NYCHA and City Employees Union, Local 237. Wilson found Williams guilty of one charge, dismissed the other, and issued a formal reprimand. Williams alleged that Wilson also told her that she should not have sent a February 8, 2017 letter about gender discrimination and workplace conditions to her union president, with NYCHA’s chairperson and politicians copied.

Supplemental Summary-Judgment Motion

NYCHA asked for permission to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment limited to whether Wilson’s alleged comment could legally support a judgment against NYCHA. The court considered declarations from Wilson and a NYCHA human-resources employee. It rejected Williams’s challenges to those declarations, explaining that the evidence could be presented in admissible form at trial and that the witnesses had been properly identified or disclosed.

The collective bargaining agreement treated local disciplinary cases as matters heard and decided by neutral hearing officers jointly selected by NYCHA and the union. The agreement divided the hearing officer’s fee between NYCHA and the union, limited the discipline that could be imposed, made the decision final and binding, and required NYCHA to implement the decision. Wilson had last been employed by NYCHA in 2010, and the record contained no evidence that she had another employment or agency relationship with NYCHA when the 2017 hearing occurred.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that there was no reasonable basis to conclude that Wilson acted as NYCHA’s agent at the hearing or that her alleged comment could be attributed to NYCHA. The court also found no evidence that the reprimand could be attributed to NYCHA. Because Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 generally makes an employer responsible for certain acts of its agents and employees, Wilson’s alleged comment and the hearing result could not support Williams’s Title VII retaliation claim against NYCHA.

The court rejected Williams’s argument that Wilson was a NYCHA employee or agent based on general references to hearing officers and arbitrators in other administrative settings. It also rejected her argument that NYCHA acted improperly by failing to challenge or correct the hearing decision, because the collective bargaining agreement made the decision unreviewable and required NYCHA to follow it. The court noted that it had already rejected Williams’s separate argument that NYCHA retaliated by bringing the disciplinary charges.

The court applied the same analysis to Williams’s retaliation claim under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). Because the claim arose from events in 2017, before the relevant NYSHRL amendments, the court concluded that the claim was governed by the same standards as the Title VII claim. The court therefore exercised supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims in the same case—and dismissed the NYSHRL claim on the merits along with the Title VII claim.

The court treated the remaining retaliation claim under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) differently. NYCHA agreed that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over that claim because NYCHRL claims use different legal standards and are analyzed separately from Title VII claims. The court declined jurisdiction and dismissed the NYCHRL claim without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted NYCHA’s supplemental motion for summary judgment. Taking the current opinion and the March 2021 opinion together, the court stated that all of Williams’s claims were dismissed with prejudice except the retaliation claim based on Wilson’s alleged comment and the result of the June 28, 2017 hearing under the NYCHRL. That claim was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The clerk was directed to enter judgment, close pending motions, and close the case.