Quarles v. New York City Health and Hospitals
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-04553
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Quarles v. New York City Health and Hospitals, Judge Gardephe granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation.
Lisa Quarles’s employment-discrimination claims were affected. The order dismissed or allowed amendment of claims against New York City Health and Hospitals, Jonathan Wangel, and Andrea Cohen as specified in the adopted report and recommendation.
What happened
Lisa Quarles sued New York City Health and Hospitals, Jonathan Wangel, and Andrea Cohen under federal and state employment-discrimination laws, including Title VII, Sections 1981 and 1983, and New York human-rights laws. The case was transferred to the Southern District of New York, where the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Quarles’s Title VII, Section 1981, New York State, and New York City claims, along with most of her Section 1983 claims. The recommendation would allow her Section 1983 failure-to-promote claim concerning H+H’s Elmhurst/Queens Director of Labor Relations position to continue. Neither side objected to the recommendation.
Judge Gardephe found no clear error, adopted the recommendation, and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. He granted leave to amend any Title VII claim against H+H involving conduct after April 15, 2020, and any Section 1983 claim, subject to deadlines for proposing an amended complaint and responding to it.
The detailed version
- Quarles v. New York City Health and Hospitals · No. 1:22-cv-04553
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 18, 2023
Background
Lisa Quarles brought claims against New York City Health and Hospitals (H+H), Jonathan Wangel, and Andrea Cohen in their individual and official capacities. The complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The action had been transferred to the Southern District of New York from the Eastern District of New York.
The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein issued a report and recommendation advising that the motion be granted in part and denied in part.
Report and recommendation
Judge Gorenstein recommended dismissing Quarles’s Title VII claims, Section 1981 claims, and New York State and New York City human-rights claims. He also recommended dismissing Quarles’s Section 1983 claims except for her failure-to-promote claim concerning H+H’s Elmhurst/Queens Director of Labor Relations position. The report and recommendation also advised granting leave to amend to the extent Quarles could cure deficiencies through good-faith pleading.
Quarles requested and received a two-week extension to object, but she did not file objections. The defendants also did not object. Because the parties had received notice that failing to object could waive further judicial review, the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error on the face of the record rather than conducting a new review of the disputed issues.
Court’s analysis
The court found the report and recommendation thorough, well-reasoned, and free of clear error. It therefore adopted the report and recommendation and ruled that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
The court concluded that amendment would be futile for several categories of claims. Title VII claims concerning events before April 15, 2020 were time-barred. Quarles had disavowed any Title VII claims against Wangel and Cohen in their individual capacities, and the court stated that individuals are not subject to Title VII liability. Quarles had withdrawn her New York State and New York City human-rights claims; the court also stated that amendment of those claims would be futile because of a complaint filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court further stated that Section 1981 provides no remedy against state actors and that the defendants are state actors.
Disposition
Leave to amend was granted as to any Title VII claim against H+H arising after April 15, 2020, and any Section 1983 claim. A motion for leave to file an amended complaint had to be submitted by August 28, 2023, with the proposed amended complaint attached. Any opposition was due September 5, 2023. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the defendants’ motion.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.