Craven v. City of New York

Background

William Craven sued the City of New York, the New York Police Department (NYPD), Chief James Secreto, and John Does 1–5. He alleged retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). He also alleged age discrimination under the ADEA, the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act, the NYSHRL, and the NYCHRL; hostile work environment under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL; and discrimination based on his status as a domestic violence victim under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL.

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim, to dismiss all claims, the NYPD, and Chief Secreto. A prior order had already dismissed with prejudice Craven’s federal age-discrimination and federal hostile-work-environment claims as time-barred, and had dismissed his earlier retaliation claims for failure to state a claim. Craven then filed the Second Amended Complaint.

Retaliation Based on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Complaint

For retaliation claims under the ADEA and NYSHRL, Craven had to plausibly allege that he engaged in protected activity, the defendants knew about it, he suffered an adverse employment action, and the action was causally connected to the protected activity. The court found that his new allegations plausibly suggested that the defendants knew about his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint filed on May 7, 2020. The court also found a plausible causal connection because his transfer occurred four days after he filed the complaint and other alleged actions occurred within four months.

The court held that Craven plausibly alleged that the transfer to the Police Academy was an adverse employment action. In addition to a longer commute and increased expenses, he alleged that his responsibilities were reduced, his work status was diminished, and he was assigned a cubicle while three other sergeants had offices. The court concluded that these allegations could make the transfer an action that might discourage a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.

The court dismissed retaliation claims based on the reassignment of an office to another employee, the note saying “THE BOSS,” and the later move of Craven’s office. It held that Craven did not provide enough facts showing an objective disadvantage, and described those allegations as petty slights or minor annoyances. The court also dismissed claims based on allegedly demeaning texts and emails sent beginning in November 2020 because they were too far removed in time from the May 2020 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint to show causation. It likewise dismissed the claims concerning the June 2021 termination proceedings and May 2022 disciplinary proceedings as retaliation for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint because those events were too distant in time.

Retaliation Based on Filing This Lawsuit

The court had previously determined that filing this lawsuit was protected activity, that the defendants knew about the lawsuit by February 12, 2021, and that the termination proceedings begun on June 24, 2021 could qualify as an adverse employment action. In the Second Amended Complaint, Craven alleged that the proceedings concerned 2018 charges that had previously been deemed unsubstantiated and that the defendants could have acted on those charges during the preceding three years. The court held that these additional allegations plausibly suggested a retaliatory motive, so the retaliation claim concerning the start of the termination proceedings could proceed.

The court dismissed the retaliation claim concerning the May 2022 disciplinary trial. It held that the more than one-year gap between the defendants’ knowledge of the lawsuit and that proceeding, without additional evidence of retaliatory motive, was insufficient to establish causation.

New York City Human Rights Law Retaliation Claims

The court applied the same general analysis to the NYCHRL retaliation claims, while recognizing that the NYCHRL uses a broader standard for adverse employment actions. The court allowed the claims that were sufficiently pleaded under the ADEA and NYSHRL to proceed under the NYCHRL as well. It dismissed the NYCHRL claims concerning the office assignments and the “THE BOSS” note because Craven did not provide enough facts showing that those events would reasonably deter a person from engaging in protected activity. The May 2022 disciplinary-proceeding claim was also dismissed under the NYCHRL because the causation problem was the same.

State and City Discrimination and Hostile-Work-Environment Claims

The defendants did not brief dismissal of Craven’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. The court explained that its earlier dismissal of those claims had been based only on the loss of supplemental jurisdiction after the federal claims were dismissed; it had not directed Craven to bring them in state court. Because the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded an ADEA retaliation claim, the court could exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. Since the defendants did not argue for dismissal of those claims, the claims could proceed.

Claims Against the NYPD and Chief Secreto

The court granted dismissal of the NYPD because, under New York City law, the NYPD is not a suable entity. It also held that the ADEA does not impose individual liability, so Chief Secreto could not be held individually liable under that statute.

The court allowed Chief Secreto to remain a party to Craven’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims. Craven alleged that Chief Secreto denied him a meeting about discriminatory transfers, gave him a 30-day suspension, subjected him to “road therapy,” and had the ability to make employment decisions. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to suggest that Chief Secreto was a supervisor who participated in the alleged conduct. The court noted that the alleged 2016 modified-duty assignment was time-barred and could not be considered.

The court dismissed Chief Secreto as a party to the retaliation claims because Craven provided no information showing that Chief Secreto participated in the alleged retaliatory acts. The court therefore granted the motion as to Chief Secreto in part and denied it in part.

Disposition

Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims in part and denied it in part. He granted the motion to dismiss the NYPD and granted the motion to dismiss Chief Secreto in part and denied it in part. The claims that may proceed are the NYSHRL and NYCHRL discrimination and hostile-work-environment claims against the City of New York and Chief Secreto, and the remaining ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL retaliation claims against the City of New York. The court did not grant leave to amend again, concluding that Craven had already had two opportunities to amend and had not shown that another amendment would cure the deficiencies.