Perez v. City of New York

Background

Oscar Perez and Daniel Benavides, Hispanic male New York City Police Department officers assigned to the 46th Police Precinct, sued the City of New York, the NYPD, former Police Commissioner Keechant L. Sewell, and five NYPD officers: Philip Rivera, Wilson Aramboles, Joseph Seminara, Richard Brea, and Emilio Melendez. They alleged discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. They also alleged a hostile work environment and retaliation under the New York statute. Perez asserted claims based on Hispanic national origin and age; Benavides asserted claims based on Hispanic national origin and gender.

The plaintiffs alleged that they lost career opportunities, favorable assignments, transfers, and overtime because of discrimination. They also described discipline, undesirable assignments, denied recognition, denied tour changes, and other workplace treatment. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Melendez, who had been served after the other defendants filed their motion, separately asked to join that motion. The plaintiffs opposed dismissal and cross-moved for permission to amend their complaint.

Rulings on the Federal Claims

The court granted Melendez’s motion to join the other defendants’ motion because the plaintiffs did not oppose it and the complaint contained no allegations unique to Melendez.

The court granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims against the NYPD with prejudice because the NYPD is not a suable entity under the New York City Charter. It also dismissed with prejudice the claims against Sewell. Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act do not impose individual liability on supervisors, and the complaint did not allege facts showing that Sewell participated in, encouraged, approved, or condoned discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. The court also dismissed with prejudice the Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims against Rivera, Aramboles, Seminara, Brea, and Melendez, while stating that it was not dismissing the corresponding state-law claims on that particular ground.

The court dismissed Perez’s federal discrimination claims because the complaint did not identify enough specific facts showing discriminatory intent, adverse employment actions, or similarly situated workers who received better treatment. The dated events generally occurred before the applicable 300-day filing period, and the court rejected Perez’s attempt to treat separate employment decisions as one continuing violation.

The court dismissed Benavides’s federal discrimination claim for similar reasons. Although two alleged events in December 2020 were timely, the complaint did not adequately allege that the denial of recognition or the denial of a tour change was materially adverse, motivated by discrimination, or part of different treatment of similarly situated workers.

The court dismissed both plaintiffs’ Title VII hostile-workplace claims. Perez did not allege a qualifying event within the statutory period. Benavides alleged some timely events, but the court found that the alleged denials of recognition and a tour change were not severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment and that the complaint did not connect the treatment to his Hispanic national origin.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the plaintiffs’ New York State Human Rights Law claims. The court noted that some state-law claims might have different limitations periods, but stated that it would not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them if the federal claims remained improperly pleaded.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion to amend. It found that the proposed amended complaint still had the same defects, but could not conclude that another amendment would necessarily be futile. The plaintiffs were allowed to file an amended complaint within fifteen days.

The court instructed that any amendment must identify each alleged discriminatory event, when it happened, who caused it, why it was unfair, and facts supporting an inference that protected status caused the treatment. The plaintiffs also had to identify when they requested overtime, promotions, desirable assignments, or transfers and explain their qualifications. Any earlier events included in a hostile-workplace claim had to be tied to timely events. The order stated that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, the motion to join was granted without opposition, and the cross motion to amend was granted.