Trujillo v. City of New York
696 F. App'x 560
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Marco Trujillo sued the City of New York and the NYPD (and other individual defendants not at issue on appeal) alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.
- The District Court granted the Municipal Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Trujillo’s amended complaint; Trujillo appealed.
- Many of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts occurred before June 29, 2013; Trujillo’s complaint included some later acts he argued were timely.
- Trujillo argued that doctrines (the "reasonably related" EEOC-omission doctrine and the continuing violation doctrine) or factual allegations could save pre-limit claims and that timely allegations showed discriminatory motive.
- The Second Circuit reviewed de novo and accepted the district court’s reasoning, affirming dismissal for failure to state plausible Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of pre‑June 29, 2013 acts | Trujillo argued those acts should be considered despite not being timely—via the reasonably related doctrine or continuing violation theory | City argued the pre‑June 29 acts are time‑barred and not saved by either doctrine | Court held pre‑June 29 acts are untimely; neither the reasonably related nor continuing violation doctrines save them |
| Application of reasonably related doctrine | Trujillo contended an inadvertent omission excused EEOC filing defects | City contended no such inadvertent omission occurred here | Court held Trujillo did not make the type of omission the doctrine cures (no reasonable relation relief) |
| Continuing violation doctrine | Trujillo argued a pattern of acts could make earlier acts timely | City argued Morgan bars using discrete acts to create a continuing violation for Title VII | Court held Morgan controls: discrete acts before the limitations period cannot be aggregated to save untimely claims |
| Sufficiency of pleading discriminatory motive | Trujillo argued his factual allegations plausibly showed discrimination/retaliation for timely acts | City argued allegations were conclusory and failed to plead nonconclusory facts showing discriminatory animus | Court held pleadings were conclusory and failed to plausibly allege discriminatory motive; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Littlejohn v. City of New York, 795 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2015) (limits on using EEOC omission/"reasonably related" doctrine to cure filing defects)
- Burgis v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Sanitation, 798 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2015) (complaint must allege nonconclusory facts to plausibly plead discrimination)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (discrete discriminatory acts are individually actionable and cannot be aggregated under the continuing violation doctrine)
- EEOC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2014) (plausibility standard for discrimination claims at pleading stage)
- Crawford v. Cuomo, 796 F.3d 252 (2d Cir. 2015) (de novo standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and pleading requirements)