McDowell v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., 788 F. Supp. 2d 78

McDowell, a Black biomedical technician, worked for North Shore/LIJ from Sept 2007 to Dec 2008 and alleges wrongful termination based on race and retaliation for reporting alleged racist remarks by a coworker.
A coworker identified as DG allegedly used the n-word in discussion with McDowell, which McDowell reported to Deborah Sullivan in Aug 2008.
In Dec 2008, North Shore/LIJ purportedly stopped giving McDowell assignments and claimed insufficient work and scheduling conflicts, which McDowell contends amounted to discharge.
McDowell contends that non-Black, similarly situated coworkers received work and that he did not.
McDowell filed suit on Aug 2, 2010 asserting discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law.
Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Court granted with leave to replead.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1981 discrimination claim is plausibly pled	McDowell alleges race-based termination	No explicit facts showing discriminatory animus by decisionmakers	Discrimination claim insufficient; dismissed
Whether § 1981 retaliation claim is plausibly pled	Protected activity (complaint) linked to adverse action (termination)	Temporal proximity alone inadequate to show causation	Retaliation claim dismissed for lack of causation evidence
Whether NYSHRL claims survive given § 1981 dismissal	NYSHRL provides independent basis for discrimination/retaliation	Claims analyzed under same framework as § 1981 and fail	NYSHRL claims dismissed with leave to amend

Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (S. Ct. 2009) (conclusion-based pleading not enough; plausibility required)
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2009) (guides Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility analysis)
CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442 (U.S. 2008) (§1981 claims analyzed under Title VII framework; pleading standard at issue)
Viviano v. City of Syracuse, 611 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2010) (applies same standard to §1981 and Title VII claims in Second Circuit)
Mian v. Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Secs. Corp., 7 F.3d 1085 (2d Cir. 1993) (requirement to plead discriminatory conduct with particularity)
Rivera-Powell v. NY City Bd. of Elections, 470 F.3d 458 (2d Cir. 2006) (racial animus must be pleaded with particularity)
Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2007) (causation in retaliation claims requires the protected activity and adverse action connection)
Espinal v. Goord, 558 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2009) (temporal proximity and inferences in causation)
Hollander v. American Cyanamid Co., 895 F.2d 80 (2d Cir. 1990) (three-month gap may be insufficient without more evidence)
Danzer v. Norden Systems, Inc., 151 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 1998) (stale remarks by decisionmakers not enough for discrimination)
Grimes v. Fremont General Corp., 785 F. Supp. 2d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (conclusory discrimination allegations insufficient)