Adeniji v. N.Y.S. Office of the State Comptroller

557 F.Supp.3d 413

Oluseyi ADENIJI, Plaintiff,

v.NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF the STATE COMPTROLLER, Defendant.

18 Civ. 0761 (PAE) (BCM)

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Signed August 31, 2021

Oluseyi Adeniji, Bronx, NY, Pro Se.

Jaclyn Danielle Saffir, Mark Eliott Klein, NYS Office of the Attorney General, New York, NY, for Defendant.

OPINION & ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

Plaintiff Oluseyi Adeniji, proceeding pro se, brings this action for race discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). Adeniji alleges that the New York State Office of the State Comptroller ("OSC") failed to hire him for the position of State Program Examiner 1 because of his race.

On October 9, 2020, OSC moved for summary judgment, Dkt. 84, on Adeniji's Amended Complaint, Dkt. 18 ("AC"). On July 21, 2021, the Hon. Barbara C. Moses, Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation to this Court, recommending that the motion for summary judgment be granted. Dkt. 114 (the "Report"). On August 4, 2021, Adeniji filed a memorandum of law setting forth his objections to the Report. Dkt. 115 ("Objections"). On August 11, 2021, OSC filed an opposition to Adeniji's objections. Dkt. 116 ("Opp'n").

For the following reasons, the Court adopts the Report in its entirety.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

The Court adopts the Report's detailed account of the facts and procedural history, to which no party objects. The following summary captures the limited facts necessary for an assessment of the issues presented.¹

Adeniji is an African-American man. OSC 56.1 ¶ 1; Adeniji 56.1 ¶ 1. On September 22, 2016, he applied for a position as a State Program Examiner ("SPE") with OSC. OSC 56.1 ¶ 3; Adeniji 56.1 ¶ 3. OSC "is an agency of the State of New York which, among other things, conducts financial audits of local governments, schools and state agencies." OSC 56.1 ¶ 2; Adeniji 56.1 ¶ 2. Applicants for the position—the duties of which involved assisting in financial performance audits of state departments and agencies—were required to have an advanced degree in economics and/or accounting, and two years of qualifying professional accounting and/or auditing expertise. Report at 2–3; Klein Reply Decl. Ex. A, at 1–2.

If an applicant for the position met minimum requirements, the applicant would complete an "education and experience questionnaire," after which a score would be generated for the applicant. Klein Reply Decl. Ex. A, at 3. The score is based on, inter alia, overall grade point average and grade point average within the applicant's major; "other relevant coursework;" professional activities; and qualifying work experience. Id. Applicants are notified via the application form that the information they provide will be verified by OSC's Division of Human Resources ("HR"), Id.; OSC 56.1 ¶ 5 ("The initial scoring of an applicant's exam is ... based solely on information provided by the applicant .... It is not unusual, however, for an applicant's exam score to change (usually downward) once HR has gone through the process of verifying the score." (emphasis in original) (citing Bernard Decl. ¶ 6)). Pursuant to the New York State Department of Civil Service's ("Civil Service") "Rule of Three," an applicant can be eligible for hiring only if (1) the applicant has a verified score of 100, or (2) all interested applicants who scored 100 must have declined the position to be eligible for hiring. OSC 56.1 ¶ 8; Report at 4. "Thus, it is rare for an applicant who has scored less than 100 to be hired off of the Civil Service list for an SPE position." Report at 4.

After applying for the SPE position and completing the questionnaire, Adeniji communicated regarding the position with Ingrid M. Otto, an Auditor 2 (Municipal) in OSC's Local Official Training Unit. Otto Decl. ¶¶ 2, 5–6; OSC 56.1 ¶¶ 11–17; Adeniji 56.1 ¶¶ 11–15; Report at 5–6, On October 6, 2016, Adeniji interviewed for the job with Otto and Kara Deiana, a Supervising Accountant in OSC's Division of Payroll, Bureau of Accounting and Revenue Services. Deiana Decl. ¶ 4. See OSC 56.1 ¶¶ 20, 21; Adeniji 56.1 ¶¶ 20, 21. "Otto and Deiana decided not to recommend [Adeniji] for a second interview." Report at 7 (citing OSC 56.1 ¶ 21; Otto Decl. Ex. H, at 3; Adeniji 56.1 ¶ 21). Otto and Deiana attest that they made their decision "based on [Adeniji's] application, the two versions of his resume, his responses to the questions they asked him at his interview, and his writing sample." Report at 7 (citing OSC 56.1 ¶ 21, Otto Decl. ¶ 15, and Deiana Decl. ¶ 8); see also OSC 56.1 ¶¶ 23–30.

Adeniji, however, argues that he was not hired because of racial discrimination. Adeniji states: "I was not recommended for the interview because of my race. As I entered the location, I could feel the rejection based on their body language. They were looking for a white candidate because of [sic] the assigned location, Newburgh, is a predominantly white neighborhood." Adeniji 56.1 ¶ 21; Report at 9.²

In April 2017, Adeniji's score was adjusted downwards, from his initial score of 100, to a verified score of 90 following HR's investigation of his qualifications, making him ineligible to be hired from the Civil Service list. OSC 56.1 ¶¶ 7, 36; see Adeniji 56.1 ¶ 36 (contesting downward score adjustment and arguing that he should have been hired for the position even with a score of 90); Report at 4 n.4. Adeniji exhausted his administrative remedies and filed this suit. See Report at 14.

B. Procedural History

1. Adeniji's Claims and OSC's Summary Judgment Motion

On January 26, 2018, Adeniji filed his original complaint in this action, alleging race and age discrimination under Title VII, two other federal statutes, and state law. Dkt. 2 at 3–5. On July 30, 2018, the Court referred the case to Magistrate Judge Moses for general pretrial management and a report and recommendation on dispositive motions. Dkt. 6. On November 5, 2018, OSC filed its first motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Adeniji's Title VII claim should be dismissed because he failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was qualified for the position or that OSC's failure to hire him was motivated by discriminatory intent, and that his remaining claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Dkt. 14.

On November 6, 2018, Judge Moses gave Adeniji an opportunity to amend his complaint. Dkt. 15. On November 26, 2018, Adeniji filed his amended complaint, asserting a single claim against OSC, under Title VII, for race discrimination. Dkt. 18. On January 11, 2019, OSC again moved to dismiss. Dkt. 22. On July 31, 2019, Judge Moses issued a report recommending that OSC's motion to dismiss be denied because Adeniji had met the minimal pleading burden. Dkt. 33. On September 3, 2019, the Court denied the motion. Dkt. 35.

On October 17, 2019, OSC filed an answer. Dkt. 43. On October 9, 2020, after discovery, OSC filed its motion for summary judgment, Dkt. 84, associated declarations, Dkts. 86–91, and its Rule 56.1 statement, Dkt. 93. On January 5, 2021, Adeniji filed his Response to OSC's Rule 56.1 Statement and supporting declaration, Dkt. 106, but did not submit a separate legal brief. On January 22, 2021, OSC submitted its reply. Dkts. 112, 113.

2. The Report and Recommendation

On July 21, 2021, Judge Moses issued the Report. Dkt. 114. She recommended that the Court grant OSC's motion for summary judgment on three grounds.

First, Adeniji could not establish a prima facie case for discrimination under Title VII because he could not show he was eligible for the SPE position. Id. at 20. Adeniji's verified score was 90, and under Civil Service's "Rule of Three," he "could not have been hired" with that score. Id. at 21. On that basis alone, OSC was entitled to summary judgment, Id. at 22.

Second, Adeniji failed to raise an inference of discrimination. Id. at 22–23. "[T]here is no evidence that similarly situated applicants who were not African-American were treated more favorably than [Adeniji]," id. at 23, based on the evidence OSC presented about its hiring, id. at 24. Nor did Adeniji present any admissible evidence of Otto's or Deiana's discriminatory animus. Id. Instead, he had "speculative beliefs and gut feelings," id. at 25 (quoting Adeniji v. Admin. For Children Servs., 43 F. Supp. 2d 407, 424 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) (internal citation omitted)), had abandoned his earlier claim that comments about his race had been made during the evaluation process, id. at 25–26, and presented only "vague and skimpy" evidence about such comments, id. at 26. The absence of such evidence, Judge Moses noted, was reinforced by the investigation by the New York State Division of Human Rights ("SDHR"), which did not find any evidence that OSC had been motivated by discriminatory animus. Id. at 27.

Third, Adeniji failed to counter OSC's legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring Adeniji: "his history of frequent job changes, the significant inconsistencies between the two versions of his resume submitted to OSC, and his poor writing sample." Id. at 29. As a result of Adeniji's application's "striking deficiencies" for a job that required "lengthy training, careful attention to detail," and writing skills, the Report concluded, "no rational juror could reject [OSC's] compelling explanation for its decision in favor of [Adeniji's] feelings and perceptions of being discriminated against." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

II. Discussion

A. Applicable Legal Standards

1. Standard of Review for a Report and Recommendation

1 In reviewing a Report and Recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When specific objections are made, "[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly...