Carrington v. New York City Human Resources Administration
1:19-cv-10301
S.D.N.Y.May 12, 2020Background:
- Joan Carrington, a white HRA Job Opportunity Specialist, alleged race discrimination and retaliation by her supervisor (Tonita Walker) beginning in 2016, including insults, bathroom restrictions, denials of overtime, and disciplinary memoranda.
- Carrington filed an SDHR complaint on November 22, 2016 (resulting in a "no probable cause" determination), plus two additional SDHR complaints later; she also filed (and voluntarily dismissed) a state-court action before bringing this federal suit on November 6, 2019 against only the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA).
- HRA moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6), and (7). The court held HRA (an agency) is an improper sole defendant and treated many arguments as merit-based dismissal grounds.
- The court found most § 1983 claims time-barred because the applicable three-year limitations period bars conduct before November 6, 2016; the continuing-violation theory was not supported by facts here.
- The NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims were largely barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine because Carrington had already brought overlapping claims before the SDHR; only post-SDHR disciplinary retaliation claims survived that bar.
- The court dismissed the complaint (granting leave to amend by June 3, 2020 to name a proper party and cure defects as to post-November 6, 2016 federal claims and state/city claims based on the later disciplinary charges); other claims were dismissed with prejudice.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper party | Sued HRA (agency) as defendant | HRA is an agency of NYC and not amenable to suit; suit must be against City | HRA is an improper defendant; complaint dismissed as filed against wrong party |
| Statute of limitations for § 1983 claims | Continuing violation tolls pre-11/6/2016 claims | § 1983 borrows NY three-year period; no continuing-policy alleged | Pre-11/6/2016 federal claims barred; continuing-violation not shown |
| Election of remedies (NYSHRL/NYCHRL) | Federal suit should proceed despite SDHR filings | SDHR filings preclude relitigation of same operative events in court | Election-of-remedies bars most state/city claims arising from SDHR matters; only new post-SDHR disciplinary claims survive |
| Retaliation (causation) | Disciplinary charges and overtime denials were retaliatory after SDHR complaint | Prior disciplinary memoranda show consistent treatment, severing causation inference | Causation not resolved for post-SDHR disciplinary charges; retaliation claims based on overtime denials fail or are barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- Duplan v. City of New York, 888 F.3d 612 (2d Cir. 2018) (§ 1981 claims against state actors proceed via § 1983; limitations analysis)
- Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206 (2d Cir. 2004) (hostile work environment: timely if one act falls within limitations and is in furtherance of the practice)
- Slattery v. Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp., 248 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2001) (temporal proximity insufficient when adverse actions predate protected activity)
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (adverse employment action requirement for § 1983 employment claims)
- Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2000) (plaintiff bears burden to establish subject-matter jurisdiction)
- York v. Ass'n of the Bar of the City of N.Y., 286 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2002) (election of remedies under NYSHRL/NYCHRL bars subsequent plenary suits)