Herman v. City of New York

Background

Nathaniel Herman sued the City of New York and New York City Police Department Lieutenant Ali Miranda. He asserted hostile-work-environment, religious-discrimination, and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Herman alleged that he is Jewish and had worked for the NYPD since 2005, becoming a sergeant in 2014. He claimed that after Miranda became his unit’s lieutenant in November 2018, Miranda harassed and discriminated against him because of his religion. Among other allegations, Herman said Miranda required him to move his locker and stated, loudly enough for colleagues to hear, “it is hard to get a Jew to give up good real estate.” Herman also alleged that he received disciplinary notices for minor incidents, lost five vacation days, and was treated more harshly than non-Jewish sergeants who allegedly committed similar violations.

Herman further alleged that he complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and, afterward, received more disciplinary notices, including one he described as fabricated. He also alleged that his shift was changed from nights to days, reducing his wages, and that he was required to work with Miranda and other lieutenants involved in the alleged harassment.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5), which addresses insufficient service of process, and Rule 12(b)(6), which addresses failure to state a legally sufficient claim. They argued that Herman served the defendants after the deadline, that some Title VII claims were untimely, and that Herman had not plausibly alleged religious discrimination, a hostile work environment, or retaliation.

Service of Process

The court found that Herman served the City 221 days after filing the complaint and Miranda 228 days after filing it, beyond Rule 4(m)’s 90-day period. The court also found that Herman had not shown “good cause” for the delay because his counsel attributed it to COVID-related staffing shortages and a calendaring mistake.

Even without good cause, however, the court had discretion to extend the service period. The court concluded that the relevant factors favored excusing the delay. In particular, refiling could cause some claims to become time-barred; the defendants had not raised the service problem until after seeking extensions to respond; and the court favored resolving disputes on their merits. The court therefore excused Herman’s failure to serve the complaint on time rather than dismissing the case on that ground.

Statute of Limitations

Title VII generally requires a charge to be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the challenged conduct. The court held that Herman’s Title VII discrimination claims were time-barred to the extent they relied on conduct before August 8, 2019. That included the alleged locker reassignment and disciplinary notices for minor incidents before that date. The court said those earlier events could still be considered as background evidence.

The court reached a different conclusion for the Title VII hostile-work-environment claim. Because Herman alleged a continuing course of mistreatment that included conduct after August 8, 2019, the court held that the earlier conduct was not time-barred for purposes of that claim.

Religious Discrimination

The court held that Herman plausibly alleged religious-discrimination claims under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. It found that the alleged disciplinary notices, loss of vacation benefits, reduced promotion prospects, and shift change resulting in lower compensation could qualify as adverse employment actions at the pleading stage.

The court also found a plausible inference of religious bias. It relied on Miranda’s alleged anti-Semitic statement and Herman’s allegations that similarly situated non-Jewish sergeants received less discipline or no discipline for similar conduct. The court stated that the New York City law provides a broader standard and therefore also allowed the city-law discrimination claim to proceed.

Hostile Work Environment

The court denied dismissal of the hostile-work-environment claims. It considered Herman’s allegations about the locker reassignment, Miranda’s anti-Semitic statement, disciplinary notices, the shift change and resulting pay reduction, and required work with Miranda and other allegedly harassing lieutenants. At the pleading stage, the court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to support a claim that the workplace conditions were worsened because of Herman’s religion. It also allowed the hostile-work-environment claim under the New York City Human Rights Law to proceed.

Retaliation

The court also denied dismissal of the retaliation claims. It treated Herman’s complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as protected activity and found that the alleged additional disciplinary notices, shift change, reduced compensation, and closer work with Miranda could discourage a reasonable employee from making a discrimination complaint.

The court further found a plausible causal connection because Herman alleged that the adverse actions occurred within months after his complaint. The court concluded that he did not need to plead the exact dates of each action to survive dismissal.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion as to Herman’s Title VII discrimination claims for acts occurring before August 8, 2019. It denied the rest of the motion as to the later Title VII discrimination claims, the New York State and New York City discrimination claims, the hostile-work-environment claims, and the retaliation claims. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status letter within fourteen days, and the clerk was directed to close the pending motion.