Eng v. City of New York, New York City Police Department
17-1308-cv
| 2d Cir. | Nov 14, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mary Eng, a long‑tenured NYPD criminalist and Safety Officer, sued City of New York/NYPD alleging pay discrimination under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), and New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
- Eng alleged she was paid less than several coworkers (two men and one woman) despite comparable roles and being the only criminalist purportedly available 24/7.
- The district court dismissed her amended complaint for failure to plead plausible claims under the EPA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, and denied leave to amend a second time as futile.
- Eng appealed dismissal and denial of leave to amend, and argued the district court should have declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city claims after dismissing federal claims.
- The Second Circuit affirmed, holding Eng’s pleadings were conclusory and failed to allege sufficient facts about job duties, skill, effort, responsibility, or discriminatory intent to state plausible claims; it also found denial of further amendment was not an abuse of discretion and supplemental jurisdiction was properly exercised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPA claim: were jobs "equal" so as to state an EPA prima facie case? | Eng: alleged substantial equality by tenure, Safety Officer role, and 24/7 availability vs higher‑paid comparators. | City: allegations were conclusory; no factual detail on duties/skills/effort/responsibility to show substantial equality. | Dismissal affirmed — pleading insufficient; exhibits and labels do not plausibly show equal work. |
| NYSHRL claim: applicable pleading standard and sufficiency | Eng: state standards purportedly more relaxed; pleaded age and gender discrimination via pay comparisons. | City: federal procedural pleading standard applies in federal court; allegations are thin and fail to raise inference of discrimination. | Dismissal affirmed — federal plausibility standard applies; allegations inadequate to infer discrimination. |
| NYCHRL claim: did district court independently analyze broader city standard? | Eng: district court failed to meaningfully analyze NYCHRL independently. | City: court applied separate NYCHRL standard and found claims still deficient. | Affirmed — district court conducted independent analysis and claims fail under NYCHRL. |
| Denial of leave to amend; supplemental jurisdiction | Eng: should have been granted a second amendment; if federal claims fail, court should dismiss state/city claims. | City: amendment would be futile; state/city claims arise from same nucleus of facts so exercise of supplemental jurisdiction proper. | Affirmed — denial of leave not an abuse (futile); district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (motion to dismiss standard; accept factual allegations and draw inferences for plaintiff)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard; conclusory allegations insufficient)
- Belfi v. Prendergast, 191 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 1999) (EPA prima facie elements and presumption of discrimination)
- Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188 (1974) (foundational EPA principles)
- Lavin‑McEleney v. Marist Coll., 239 F.3d 476 (2d Cir. 2001) (substantial equality standard for EPA comparisons)
- EEOC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) (jobs must entail common duties/content for EPA equality comparison)
- Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965) (federal courts apply federal procedural law and state substantive law)
- Cooper v. N.Y. State Dep’t of Labor, 819 F.3d 678 (2d Cir. 2016) (applying federal pleading standards to NYSHRL claims)
- Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2013) (NYCHRL construed broadly; requires independent analysis)
- Norton v. Sam’s Club, 145 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 1998) (cannot infer discrimination from bare statistical or thin allegations)
- Starr v. Sony BMG Music Entm’t, 592 F.3d 314 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard of review for denial of leave to amend)
- Panther Partners Inc. v. Ikanos Commc’ns, Inc., 681 F.3d 114 (2d Cir. 2012) (futility as a legal basis to deny leave to amend)
- Shahriar v. Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 234 (2d Cir. 2011) (§1367(a) common nucleus of operative fact test)
- Treglia v. Town of Manlius, 313 F.3d 713 (2d Cir. 2002) (exercise of supplemental jurisdiction proper where state and federal claims arise from same events)