Latif v. Department For the Aging

Background

Marlena Latif, an African-American woman who worked in the Department for the Aging’s information-technology unit, brought claims against the City of New York, the Department for the Aging, and individual defendants. She alleged that she was denied promotions and career-advancing training, received negative performance evaluations, and was subjected to ridicule and insults. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Equal Pay Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, and 1986, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of deciding the motion.

Exhaustion and Time Limits

The court rejected the argument that Latif failed to first present her Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It held that Latif could rely on a prior related proceeding involving coworker Eddy Toussaint’s charge because the allegations involved comparable race and age discrimination in the same Department for the Aging unit and time frame. The motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies was therefore denied.

The court nevertheless held that the rule allowing Latif to rely on Toussaint’s charge did not extend the 300-day deadline for federal discrimination claims. Discrete actions such as denials of promotion, denials of training, and negative performance evaluations occurring before April 20, 2021, were time-barred under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Under the New York State Human Rights Law, claims accruing before March 20, 2017, were time-barred. The court held that the continuing-violation rule could preserve older New York City Human Rights Law disparate-treatment allegations that were part of an alleged continuing discriminatory pattern. It also held that the hostile-work-environment claims were not time-barred at the pleading stage.

Claims Dismissed or Withdrawn

The court granted the motion as to Latif’s disparate-impact claim; her claims under §§ 1985 and 1986; and all claims against the Department for the Aging and Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez. It also granted the motion as to all claims against Michael Bosnick and Caryn Resnick because the complaint did not adequately allege their personal involvement in the alleged discrimination. Latif had withdrawn or failed to pursue some of these claims in her opposition papers, and she acknowledged that the Department for the Aging was not suable under the New York City Charter.

The court dismissed Latif’s Title VII disparate-treatment claim because she did not allege a qualifying adverse action within the 300-day period. It dismissed her Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim because the alleged actions were outside that period and the complaint did not otherwise plausibly connect the conduct to age discrimination. The court also dismissed her Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims because the allegations did not plausibly show that sufficiently severe or pervasive mistreatment occurred because of her race. Her Equal Pay Act claim was dismissed because she did not provide enough facts comparing her job duties, skills, experience, and pay with those of potential comparators.

Claims Allowed to Proceed

The court denied the motion as to Latif’s New York State Human Rights Law disparate-treatment claims. It concluded that her allegations about being passed over for promotion, denied training, and receiving a negative evaluation plausibly suggested race discrimination. Among other allegations, she claimed that a non-African-American employee with less experience was promoted to a computer-specialist position and received a larger pay increase, and that non-African-American employees received training opportunities that she and two African-American coworkers were denied.

The court also denied the motion as to Latif’s New York City Human Rights Law disparate-treatment claims. Because those claims survived under the state-law analysis, the court concluded that they also survived under the broader city-law standard. The court further denied the motion as to Latif’s New York City Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claim, finding that she plausibly alleged that similarly situated non-African-American employees were treated more favorably because of a discriminatory motive. Finally, the court denied the motion as to Latif’s Title VII retaliation claim because the defendants did not move to dismiss it and the record did not show that Latif had abandoned it.

Municipal Liability

The court granted the motion to dismiss Latif’s §§ 1981 and 1983 claims against the City. Claims against a city under those provisions require facts plausibly showing that an official city policy or custom caused the alleged violation. The court found that Latif’s general allegations about a secretive promotion process and a practice of sending non-African-American employees to training did not adequately establish a formal city policy. It also found that her allegations did not show that Sal Rullan, the deputy director of the information-technology unit, had final policymaking authority.

Disposition

The order states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The granted portion covered Latif’s Title VII disparate-treatment claim; Age Discrimination in Employment Act disparate-treatment claim; Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims; Equal Pay Act claim; §§ 1985 and 1986 claims; §§ 1981 and 1983 claims; and claims against the Department for the Aging, Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez, Michael Bosnick, and Caryn Resnick. The denied portion covered Latif’s New York State Human Rights Law disparate-treatment claims, New York City Human Rights Law disparate-treatment and hostile-work-environment claims, and Title VII retaliation claim. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion and several defendants from the docket. The order also notes that claims against Kamlesh Patel and Jack Rizzo had previously been dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.