Bovell v. City of Mount Vernon, New York

Nature of the Order

This opinion resolves the parties’ motions in limine, which are requests for advance rulings about what evidence or arguments may be presented at trial. The court did not decide whether Bovell or the defendants ultimately prevailed on the underlying discrimination, retaliation, speech, or emotional-distress claims.

Background

Murashea Bovell, a police officer employed by the Mount Vernon Police Department since June 2007, alleged that the City of Mount Vernon and several police officials discriminated against him and retaliated against him after an earlier lawsuit and complaints about alleged sexism, racism, corruption, police brutality, and other misconduct. The alleged events included treatment surrounding his return to duty, fitness-for-duty examinations, removal of his firearms, a pistol-permit proceeding, alleged slander, workplace incidents involving a rubber rat and comments about rats, and failure to promote him to detective.

Bovell had filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which transferred it to the New York State Division of Human Rights. That state agency found no probable cause. The defendants argued that the agency’s decision barred evidence concerning events before June 11, 2019 and had a preclusive effect on Bovell’s claims.

Defendants’ Motions

Motion No. 1: Election of remedies and issue preclusion. The court denied this motion in its entirety. It held that Bovell’s New York Human Rights Law claims were not barred by the election-of-remedies rule because he filed his complaint first with the federal employment agency, which then transferred it to the state agency. The court also held that the state agency’s decision could not preclude Bovell’s federal Title VII claims because the decision had not been reviewed by a state court. As to the federal civil-rights and New York Human Rights Law claims, the court concluded that Bovell had not received a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the agency proceeding because he proceeded without a lawyer and, according to his position, had no discovery, hearing, or opportunity to confront witnesses. The agency proceeding also did not address the July and August 2019 events.

Motions Nos. 2–4: Temporal scope of the claims. These motions were granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the evidence at trial would generally focus on conduct beginning around February 24, 2018, consistent with the limitations Bovell accepted. Evidence could include limited earlier context needed to explain alleged retaliation. The court also stated that an alleged failure to promote based on investigative work from 2010 to 2013 had already been raised and resolved in the earlier round of this case and could not serve as the basis for a failure-to-promote claim after that earlier case. The court would enforce these limits at trial.

Motion No. 5: Administrative exhaustion. The court denied the motion. The defendants argued that Bovell’s Title VII claims based on events after May 31, 2018 should be dismissed because he had not filed a later complaint with the federal employment agency. The court held that the defendants waived this defense by failing to raise it in their answer and declined to allow them to assert it shortly before trial.

Motion No. 6: Other police actions. The court denied this motion without prejudice. The defendants’ request to exclude evidence about other police officers’ alleged discriminatory conduct was too vague to decide. The court invited the parties to identify the specific incidents and purposes for which the evidence might be offered.

Motion No. 7: Indemnification. The court granted the motion. Bovell may not present evidence or argument that the City of Mount Vernon might be required to indemnify the individual defendants.

Motion No. 8: Disciplinary histories and prior civil-rights lawsuits. The court denied this motion without prejudice because it lacked enough information about the particular evidence Bovell might offer and the purposes for which he might use it.

Motion No. 9: Specific damages amount. The court granted the motion. Bovell may present evidence supporting economic damages, but he may not ask the jury to award a specific dollar amount.

Motion No. 10: Recordings. The defendants’ request to reserve the right to object to recordings was not a motion requiring a ruling. The court stated that the defendants could make appropriate objections when particular recordings were offered at trial.

Bovell’s Motions

Undisclosed exhibits and witnesses. The court granted in part and denied in part without prejudice Bovell’s motion to exclude exhibits and witnesses that the defendants allegedly failed to disclose during discovery. The court granted the motion as to former Westchester County District Attorney Anthony Scarpino and William Wagstaff, the City of Mount Vernon’s special prosecutor for police corruption. The court found that the defendants had not adequately explained their late disclosure, that Bovell would be prejudiced because he had not been able to conduct discovery concerning them, and that a continuance was not warranted.

The court did not make final, comprehensive rulings on all other disputed exhibits and witnesses. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about each item and identify any remaining objections in a revised joint pretrial order. The court would make further determinations at the next pretrial conference.

Evidence about the truth of Bovell’s complaints. The court denied Bovell’s motion. For his Title VII and New York Human Rights Law retaliation claims, Bovell did not need to prove that his underlying complaints were actually correct; he needed to show that he reasonably and honestly believed the complained-of employment practices were unlawful. For his First Amendment retaliation claims, however, the truthfulness of the complaints remained relevant because false statements are protected only if they were not made knowingly or with reckless disregard for their falsity. The court therefore declined to exclude all evidence concerning the truth or falsity of Bovell’s complaints.

Result

The court resolved the motions as described above, directed the parties to revise their joint pretrial order, and scheduled a further in-person conference. Judge Andrew E. Krause signed the opinion and order on May 18, 2023.