Murillo-Roman v. The Pension Boards-United Church of Christ, Inc.

Background

Dilka Murillo-Roman sued The Pension Boards-United Church of Christ and supervisors John Linzey and Camilia Huggins. She alleged discrimination, retaliation, and related violations under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

According to the amended complaint, Murillo-Roman was born and raised in Panama, later immigrated to the United States, and spoke English with a Panamanian accent. She alleged that Huggins mocked her accent, yelled at her, assigned her unusually heavy workloads, withheld assistance and information, and treated her more harshly than other employees. She also alleged that Linzey failed to address her complaints, pressured her to accept a changed performance evaluation, and participated in assigning her difficult work. The Pension Boards terminated her employment on October 8, 2019, while she was on leave or recovering from medical conditions. She alleged that the company later hired two non-Latino employees to perform some of her tasks and assigned the remaining work to other accountants.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that it violated the requirement for a short and plain statement, failed to provide adequate notice, included untimely claims, and did not plausibly state any of the asserted causes of action.

Technical objections

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the 51-page amended complaint violated Rule 8. Although the complaint was repetitive and detailed, the court found that it was not so confused or unintelligible that dismissal was warranted.

The court also rejected the argument that the summonses failed to provide proper notice under New York law. The summonses identified the action as involving employment discrimination based on age, race, color, national origin, disability, and retaliation, and stated the relief sought. The court concluded that this gave the defendants sufficient notice.

Timeliness rulings

The court held that Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims based on acts before September 25, 2019, were generally outside the 300-day period preceding Murillo-Roman’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge. The court rejected her argument that earlier discrete acts became timely under the continuing-violation doctrine. It held that the termination on October 8, 2019, was a timely discrete act, but did not revive otherwise untimely earlier acts or establish a continuing discriminatory policy.

As a result, the Title VII, ADA, and ADEA claims proceeded, if at all, only as to the termination. The court noted that earlier acts could still be considered as background evidence for a timely claim. The court dismissed the FMLA claims as untimely because Murillo-Roman did not dispute the defendants’ timeliness argument and had not alleged a willful violation that would allow a longer limitations period.

The court held that the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims were time barred to the extent they relied on conduct before October 19, 2017. However, it found that alleged harassment after that date could support timely hostile-work-environment claims because the allegations described repeated conduct by the same alleged harasser. The court similarly held that Section 1981 claims based on conduct before May 9, 2018, were time barred, while timely hostile-work-environment claims could include earlier related incidents.

Discrimination claims

The court held that Murillo-Roman plausibly alleged race and national-origin discrimination under Title VII and Section 1981. The allegations of a punishing workload, withheld assistance and information, an allegedly inaccurate performance evaluation, impossible work expectations, repeated comments about her accent, and largely unaddressed complaints provided enough support at the pleading stage for an inference that discrimination contributed to the termination. The court therefore allowed the Title VII discrimination claim concerning the termination and the Section 1981 discrimination claims based on conduct after May 9, 2018, to proceed.

The court dismissed the ADA and ADEA discrimination claims. It found no facts plausibly suggesting that disability or age was the reason for the termination. The fact that two younger employees performed some of Murillo-Roman’s former tasks was not, standing alone, enough to support age discrimination. The court also rejected the ADA failure-to-accommodate theory, finding the allegations untimely and finding that the Pension Boards had communicated with Murillo-Roman about her condition and leave.

The court allowed Murillo-Roman’s NYSHRL and NYCHRL race-, national-origin-, ethnicity-, and ancestry-discrimination claims to proceed for conduct after October 19, 2017. It dismissed her state and city age-discrimination claims because the allegations that younger employees performed some of her work and that someone called her “obsolete” did not plausibly suggest age-based motivation. It also dismissed her state and city disability-discrimination claims because they did not connect any defendant’s action to her disability.

Retaliation claims

The court allowed the Title VII, Section 1981, and NYSHRL retaliation claims to proceed. Murillo-Roman alleged that she complained about treatment based on her ethnicity, national origin, accent, and skin color, and that shortly after a February 2019 meeting she received a disproportionately heavy workload and an allegedly impossible assignment. She was later terminated after taking medical leave. The court found these allegations sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage to suggest a causal connection between protected complaints and adverse employment actions.

The court noted that whether the February 2019 complaint independently qualified as protected activity was unclear because the complaint described treatment as different without expressly identifying a protected characteristic. But, considering the other complaints and allegations, the court allowed the Title VII, Section 1981, and NYSHRL retaliation claims to proceed. The court treated the ADA, ADEA, and NYCHRL retaliation claims as abandoned because Murillo-Roman did not respond to the defendants’ arguments concerning those claims.

Aiding-and-abetting claims

The court denied dismissal of Murillo-Roman’s aiding-and-abetting claims under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL against Huggins and Linzey. It found that she adequately alleged that Huggins and Linzey actually participated in the conduct underlying the discrimination and retaliation claims, including the disproportionate workload and Linzey’s handling of the performance evaluation.

Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court denied dismissal of: (1) the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims concerning the termination; (2) the Section 1981 discrimination and retaliation claims concerning conduct after May 9, 2018; (3) the NYSHRL race- and national-origin discrimination and retaliation claims concerning conduct after October 19, 2017; (4) the NYCHRL race- and national-origin discrimination claims concerning conduct after October 19, 2017; and (5) the Section 1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL hostile-work-environment claims. The court granted dismissal as to the rest of the claims, including dismissing the ADA, ADEA, and FMLA claims in their entirety.