Dowdy v. City of New York

Background

Dameka Dowdy and the other named plaintiffs are employed by the City of New York and the New York City Department of Sanitation as Sanitation Enforcement Agents or Associate Sanitation Enforcement Agents. They alleged that Sanitation Police Officers performed substantially the same work but received higher pay and better benefits. They further alleged that only existing Sanitation Workers could become Sanitation Police Officers, and that the requirements for becoming a Sanitation Worker—including a civil-service examination, physical requirements, and a commercial driver’s license—created a discriminatory barrier affecting Black and female Enforcement Agents.

The amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the Equal Pay Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The defendants moved to dismiss. The plaintiffs stated that they did not object to proceeding only against the City, and they elected not to proceed with the § 1983 claim.

Title VII, State, and City Disparate-Impact Claims

The court held that the plaintiffs had not established the injury required for standing under Article III of the Constitution. For a disparate-impact challenge to a selection policy, a plaintiff generally must apply for the position, unless applying would be futile. Even when futility is alleged, the plaintiff must show a concrete intent and be “able and ready” to apply.

Only one plaintiff, Raymond Tabon, was alleged to have applied to become a Sanitation Worker. He applied in the 1980s and 1990s but did not meet the requirements, including the commercial-driver’s-license requirement. The complaint did not allege that the other plaintiffs had applied and been rejected. Although the plaintiffs argued that applying would have been futile, the court found that the complaint did not adequately show that any identifiable plaintiff was able and ready to apply for either position. It also did not allege the minimum requirements for becoming a Sanitation Police Officer or show that any plaintiff met those requirements apart from the alleged barriers.

The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ disparate-impact claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law for lack of standing. The court did not decide whether the challenged employment practices actually discriminated against the plaintiffs.

Equal Pay Act Claim

The Equal Pay Act prohibits paying employees of one sex less than employees of the opposite sex for substantially equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility under similar working conditions. The court found the plaintiffs’ allegations insufficient.

The complaint alleged generally that Sanitation Police Officers and Enforcement Agents performed some of the same functions and that Sanitation Police Officers were paid more. But it did not specifically compare the positions, experience, skills, responsibilities, or job content of the female Enforcement Agents with those of male Sanitation Police Officers. It also did not provide non-conclusory allegations about whether the jobs involved similar working conditions, such as similar hours or schedules. The court therefore granted the motion to dismiss the Equal Pay Act claim.

Other Dispositions and Leave to Amend

The plaintiffs elected not to proceed with their § 1983 claim, and the court dismissed that claim without prejudice. The New York City Department of Sanitation was also dismissed as a defendant after the plaintiffs stated that they did not object to asserting their claims only against the City of New York.

The court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend. In its conclusion, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. It directed the parties to appear for a telephone status conference about filing an amended complaint.