Mohan v. City of N.Y.
| Decision Date | 03 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 17 Civ. 3820 (KPF) |
| Parties | MARIE MOHAN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, SEUNGHWAN KIM, VINCENT RIVERA, and MICHAEL AARONSON, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Plaintiff Marie Mohan importunes this Court for relief against the City of New York (the "City"), Seunghwan Kim, Vincent Rivera, and Michael Aaronson (together with Kim and Rivera, the "Individual Defendants," and collectively with the City, "Defendants"), claiming the creation of a hostile work environment, as well as discrimination and retaliation, during Plaintiff's employment at the New York City Comptroller's Office (the "Comptroller's Office"). The operative pleading in this case, Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (or "TAC"), advances claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17; New York Civil Service Law § 75-b; and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101-8-131 ("NYCHRL"). Defendants have moved to dismiss the TAC, arguing procedural and pleading deficiencies. For the reasons that follow, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's NYCHRL claims without prejudice, and her remaining claims with prejudice.
Despite having had three opportunities to amend her complaint, Plaintiff is strikingly imprecise in alleging the roles of the individuals involved in Plaintiff's claims, their respective job duties, and even their interactions with her. What is more, the events allegedly underlying Plaintiff's claims are sporadic and often disjointed. With those caveats in mind, the Court proceeds to discuss Plaintiff's factual allegations in chronological order.
Plaintiff is "an African-American female of Haitian descent." (TAC ¶ 7). She began her employment at the Comptroller's Office on or about March 3, 1997, with the title "Claims Specialist Level 2." (Id. at ¶¶ 16-17). Plaintiff was subsequently promoted in May 1999 after roughly two years of work to the title of "Claims Manager/Administrative Claims Examiner." (Id. at ¶ 20). Plaintiff held this title for over 15 years until, as relevant to many of her claims, she was demoted in January 2016. (Id. at ¶ 21).
Defendants consist of the City of New York, within which sits the Comptroller's Office; and three individuals, each of whom served as Plaintiff's supervisor in some capacity during her tenure at the Comptroller's Office. Rivera served as Plaintiff's direct supervisor from the time of her transfer to the Department of Education Team2 in December 2013 until Rivera's eventual retirement in July 2016. (TAC ¶¶ 12, 15). Aaronson served as Rivera's direct supervisor at all times relevant to Plaintiff's Complaint. (Id. at ¶ 59). Plaintiff alleges that in this position, Aaronson had the ability to transfer staff to different divisions, to assign staff to physical cubicles, and to complete job performance evaluations for Division Chiefs. (Id. at ¶¶ 25, 41, 44). Kim held the position of Assistant Comptroller during the relevant period. (Id. at ¶ 10).3
Plaintiff's earliest grievances in this action stem from administrative claims for discrimination that she filed on or about August 23, 2013, jointly with the New York State Division of Human Rights ("SDHR") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (TAC ¶ 22). Although the TAC does not offer any detail as to what catalyzed those claims, it recites that the alleged discrimination was "based upon race/color, and retaliation foropposing unlawful employment action." (Id.). Defendant Michael Aaronson is the only one of the current defendants who is also named in the 2013 filings. (Id. at ¶ 23).
Several months after filing the SDHR and EEOC charges, in December 2013, Plaintiff was transferred within the Comptroller's Office from the No-Fault Division to the Department of Education Team within the Bureau of Law and Adjustment. (TAC ¶ 25). This transfer occurred over Plaintiff's objection, which she explains was predicated on a fear of retaliation by supervisors in the Bureau of Law and Adjustment. (Id.).4 Following the transfer, Plaintiff complained to Comptroller John Liu that the transfer itself was retaliatory. (Id. at ¶ 26).
In January 2014, while Plaintiff's administrative claims were pending, Aaronson assigned Karen Cohen — an individual named in Plaintiff's administrative claims — to a cubicle adjacent to Plaintiff's. (TAC ¶¶ 23, 44). According to Plaintiff, Cohen was not a member of Plaintiff's unit, "and there were other available cubicles at the time where Aaronson could have assigned Ms. Cohen." (Id. at ¶ 44). Plaintiff alleges that she "could not do anything in her work cubicle without Ms. Cohen knowing," and that Cohen often stood up in her cubicle to observe Plaintiff throughout the workday. (Id. at ¶ 45). Plaintiff found Cohen's actions to be "very unsettling," and voiced her discomfort to Defendant Aaronson via email. (Id. at ¶ 46). Despite hercomplaint, Plaintiff remained in the same situation until July 2014, when Cohen left the Comptroller's Office. (Id. at ¶ 49). During this period, it was "very stressful" for Plaintiff to go into the office. (Id.).
Ultimately, the SDHR dismissed Plaintiff's charge on or about June 2, 2014, citing "insufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause for the alleged discrimination." (TAC ¶ 24).
Plaintiff also complains about her failure to receive annual job performance evaluations for the years 2011 through 2014, even though the Comptroller's Office maintained a "practice and policy" of completing such evaluations. (TAC ¶¶ 41-42). In or about August 2014, Plaintiff complained of the absence of such evaluations in her personnel file via email to Assistant Comptroller Amedeo D'Angelo and copied Aaronson on the message. (Id. at ¶ 51).
In or about 2015, Plaintiff again voiced her concerns regarding the absence of performance evaluations, this time to her supervisor, Debra Sencer. (TAC ¶ 41). Plaintiff was advised that until Aaronson completed the evaluations for the Division Chiefs, no evaluations for staff in the No-Fault Division would be completed. (Id.). Plaintiff alleges that at the Comptroller's Office, in the absence "of a job performance evaluation," an employee would bein the "unenviable position of not being seriously considered for promotions, certain job assignments, or bonuses." (Id. at ¶ 43).5
When Plaintiff was transferred to the Department of Education Team in December 2013, Rivera, who was a supervisor in Plaintiff's new division, "began complaining to Mohan that he was not very happy with his domestic situation[.]" (TAC ¶ 28). Additionally, Rivera "informed Mohan that he would soon retire and, as a result would not need some of the personal equipment which he had at the office[.]" (Id. at ¶ 31). Over the course of the ensuing nine months, Rivera began giving Plaintiff items he held in his office, which gifts Plaintiff accepted. (Id. at ¶ 32). But after giving Plaintiff a coffee maker in the third quarter of 2015, Rivera announced to Plaintiff that "he had a sexual interest in [her]"; Plaintiff rebuffed this advance, stating "in very clear terms that she would not engage in sexual relations with [him.]" (Id. at ¶¶ 33-35).
"A few days after Rivera openly expressed his desire to have a sexual relationship with Mohan, Rivera told Mohan to 'forget' that they ever had the conversation about his sexual desire[.]" (TAC ¶ 36). But according to Plaintiff, the damage was done: Not long after Plaintiff rebuffed Rivera, he "began nit-picking [Plaintiff]'s work" and "became much more critical of Mohan's work at the office, a problem which Mohan never had when she began working underRivera[.]" (Id. at ¶ 37). Plaintiff claims these events caused her "great mental anguish." (Id. at ¶ 38).
In September 2015, while still working in the Department of Education Team under Rivera, Plaintiff voiced to Kim and Aaronson her belief that claims submitted to the Department of Education Team were being mishandled. (TAC ¶ 57). Specifically, Plaintiff related that "[c]laims in the Department of Education Team were not properly investigated before settlement," and that the "beneficiaries of the payments coming from these mishandled claims were Whites and the [rumors] in the office [were] that the payment beneficiaries were politically connected." (Id. at ¶¶ 55-56).
Shortly after Plaintiff made this report, "Mike Reder, a Claims Specialist, issued an instruction to Mohan, a Claims Manager, at the behest of Rivera and William Kuehl." (TAC ¶ 58).6 The TAC offers no insight into the content of this instruction, save for Plaintiff's allegation that she found it "very offensive" and complained of it to a representative of the union to which Reder belonged, AFSCME District Council ("DC") 37. (Id. at ¶ 60). Additionally, Plaintiff sent an email detailing Reder's conduct to Rivera and William Kuehl. (Id. at ¶ 61). "Neither Rivera nor Mr. Kuehl ever responded to [Plaintiff's] email on the subject." (Id.). Plaintiff adds that at the time of the offending instruction, Aaronson was Rivera's immediate supervisor, and she surmises that "Rederwould not have taken the aforesaid actions without the prior encouragement or acquiescence of Aaronson and Rivera." (Id. at ¶ 59).
Following the incident with Reder, after September 24, 2015, Plaintiff began receiving a "far [lower] number of claims" in her work at the Comptroller's Office. (TAC ¶ 62). Plaintiff reported this development in an email to Kevin Jordan,7 copying Rivera and Aaronson. (Id.). Also on or about September 24, 2015, Rivera called a meeting with Plaintiff, during which he instructed her "not to write notes or comments regarding the identification of third-party claims...
To continue reading
Request your trial