Ekpe v. Patel

Background

Ekpe alleged that he and two African-American coworkers were denied promotions and career-advancing training at the New York City Department for the Aging. He also alleged that they received negative performance evaluations and were told to seek employment at another city agency. His second amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment 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 states a legally sufficient claim. They argued that some allegations were too old, that Ekpe had not completed the required administrative process, that he had not adequately alleged certain defendants’ personal involvement, and that his claims were otherwise legally insufficient.

Rulings on Abandoned, Withdrawn, and Administrative Claims

The court granted dismissal of Ekpe’s Title VII disparate-impact claim, his claims under Sections 1985 and 1986, and his claims against the Department for the Aging. The court treated the conspiracy claims as abandoned because Ekpe did not address them in opposition to the motion. It also relied on Ekpe’s concession that the Department for the Aging was not suable under the New York City Charter and his withdrawal of the disparate-impact claim.

Ekpe had not filed his own charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court nevertheless denied the motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. It held that Ekpe could use the “single-filing” rule, which allows one employee to rely on another employee’s timely administrative charge when the claims involve similar discriminatory treatment during the same period. The court found Ekpe’s allegations reasonably related to coworker Toussaint’s April 2018 charge because both alleged race and age discrimination, worked in the same unit for approximately fifteen years, and allegedly experienced many of the same actions.

Federal Discrimination Claims

The court granted dismissal of Ekpe’s Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act disparate-treatment claims as time-barred. Because Ekpe relied on Toussaint’s charge, the court measured timeliness from that charge. Alleged discriminatory acts occurring before June 16, 2017—300 days before the charge was filed—were outside the applicable period. The court treated each alleged failure to promote, denial of training, and negative performance evaluation as a separate act. It concluded that Ekpe had not alleged any such adverse action within the 300-day period.

The court also granted dismissal of Ekpe’s Title VII hostile-work-environment claims. A hostile-work-environment claim requires allegations that discriminatory conduct was severe or pervasive enough to make the workplace objectively and subjectively hostile or abusive because of race. The court found that Ekpe alleged no racially discriminatory statements, intimidation, or ridicule directed at him, apart from one statement allegedly directed at Latif. It also found that the alleged failures to promote, failures to train, and negative evaluation did not reach the required level of severity or pervasiveness.

The court granted dismissal of Ekpe’s claims under Sections 1981 and 1983 against the city based on municipal liability. Under the governing municipal-liability rules, a city generally is not liable merely because it employs someone who allegedly violated a plaintiff’s rights. The plaintiff must plausibly allege that an official policy or custom caused the violation, or that an authorized final policymaker made the challenged decision. The court found that Ekpe’s allegations about a secretive promotion process and preferential training did not adequately show a formal city policy. It also found that Ekpe did not adequately allege that Rullan, the deputy director of the information technology unit, had final policymaking authority.

State and Local Claims and Disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state claims in the same case—over Ekpe’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court.

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted as to Ekpe’s federal claims. Ekpe’s state and local claims were dismissed without prejudice to renewal in state court. The clerk was directed to enter judgment for the defendants and close the case.