Flynn v. Bronx Parent Housing Network
- Naomi Buchwald
- 1:21-cv-02871
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Flynn v. Bronx Parent Housing Network, Judge Buchwald granted the City’s dismissal motion, dismissing some claims with prejudice and sending others to state court.
Qiana Flynn’s claims against the City of New York were dismissed. Her Title VII claim and unspecified fifth claim were dismissed with prejudice; her remaining state and city-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court. The court entered judgment for the City and closed the case.
What happened
Flynn v. Bronx Parent Housing Network concerned former BPHN employees who allegedly were fired after complaining about sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Qiana Flynn sued BPHN, Victor Rivera, and the City of New York under federal, state, and city laws, but settlements with BPHN and Rivera left the City as the only defendant.
The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss in its entirety. It dismissed Flynn’s Title VII claim and her unspecified fifth claim with prejudice because she did not plausibly show that the City was her employer or give the City fair notice of the fifth claim. The court dismissed the remaining state and city-law claims without prejudice because it declined to hear them in federal court, leaving them available for renewal in state court.
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered judgment for the City and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Flynn v. Bronx Parent Housing Network · No. 1:21-cv-02871
- Naomi Buchwald
- May 22, 2023
Background
Qiana Flynn sued Bronx Parent Housing Network (BPHN), its former director Victor Rivera, and the City of New York. The complaint alleged that former BPHN employees were terminated after complaining about sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Flynn asserted five categories of claims: violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; New York Labor Law § 201-g; New York City Human Rights Law § 8-107; various New York common-law claims; and an unspecified claim alleging that the City knew about misconduct at BPHN but continued funding BPHN.
Flynn and the other plaintiffs in related cases settled with BPHN and Rivera. The City was the only remaining defendant in Flynn’s case. The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.
Court’s analysis
The court concluded that Flynn did not plausibly allege that the City was liable under Title VII. Title VII generally requires an employment relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Flynn alleged that she was employed by BPHN, not the City, and did not allege that the City paid her directly.
The court also rejected Flynn’s theories that the City and BPHN were a single employer or joint employers. It found that Flynn’s allegations about the relationship were largely conclusions and did not adequately show that the City controlled her pay, hiring, firing, or daily work. The complaint also did not satisfy the fair-notice requirement for the fifth cause of action because the court could not identify a legal theory supporting that claim.
Disposition
The court dismissed Flynn’s first and fifth causes of action with prejudice. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the remaining claims and dismissed those claims without prejudice to renewal in state court. The City’s motion to dismiss was granted in its entirety. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment for the City and close the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.