Dinkins v. Mayorkas

Background

Zaziiz S. L. Dinkins, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Alejandro Mayorkas in his official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security. Dinkins alleged that while working as a program analyst for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, she experienced employment discrimination, a hostile work environment, and retaliation based on race or color, disability, national origin, and age. The opinion interpreted her allegations as invoking Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Dinkins alleged that Tasha Coleman, a supervisor, refused to review her work, denied her a work trip, made insulting comments, excluded her from meetings, isolated her from coworkers, ended the project she had been building, failed to give her replacement work, and did not extend her contract. Dinkins also alleged that after she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint, Coleman continued excluding her and reassigned her remaining work.

Dinkins first contacted an Equal Employment Opportunity counselor on October 9, 2019, and filed a formal complaint with the Department of Homeland Security on January 21, 2020. The agency concluded that she had not proved discrimination. After related litigation was transferred to the Southern District of New York, Mayorkas moved to dismiss under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally plausible claim.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Dinkins adequately alleged one adverse employment action: Coleman allegedly reassigned Dinkins’s work and did not provide alternative work, leaving her with little or nothing to do. The court concluded that the other alleged events—including exclusion from meetings, being left out of the office move for several hours, and not being selected for the Puerto Rico trip—did not, as pleaded, amount to a materially harmful change in employment conditions.

The discrimination claims nevertheless failed because Dinkins did not clearly identify which protected class or classes were the basis for the alleged discrimination. The court also found that she did not allege facts showing that Coleman took away her work because of race or color, disability, national origin, or age. In particular, the complaint did not include direct comments about those characteristics or sufficiently specific comparisons with similarly situated coworkers who were treated better.

The hostile-work-environment claim failed for two independent reasons. Dinkins did not provide enough detail to show that the comments, meeting exclusions, and isolation were objectively severe or pervasive—that is, sufficiently serious or frequent that a reasonable person would view the workplace as hostile or abusive. She also did not adequately allege that the conduct occurred because of a protected characteristic.

The retaliation claim identified Dinkins’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint as protected activity, and the court treated the alleged reassignment of her work as a potentially adverse action. But the claim failed because the alleged reduction and reassignment of her work began in June and December 2019, before Dinkins filed the complaint on January 21, 2020. The court therefore found that she had not adequately alleged that the work reassignment was caused by her protected activity. Her general allegation that Coleman continued to exclude her was too vague to establish another adverse action.

Ruling

Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The court did not dismiss the case permanently and allowed Dinkins to file an amended complaint by June 22, 2024. The court identified the information an amended complaint would need to provide, including the relevant protected class or classes, facts supporting discriminatory intent, facts showing a sufficiently severe hostile work environment, and facts connecting any retaliation to the filing of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint.