Murray v. City of New York

1

ELMORE MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEW YORK and OFFICE OF THE BRONX DISTRICT ATTORNEY, Defendants.

No. 23 Civ. 10031 (PAE)

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 26, 2024

OPINION & ORDER

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Elmore Murray, an African American woman, brings this action against the Office of the Bronx District Attorney (the “DA's Office”), her employer between 2004 and 2023, and the City of New York. Murray's claims are brought under the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C §§ 2612 et seq. (“FMLA”), the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 206 et seq. (“FLSA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-502(a) et seq. (“NYCHRL”).

At the core of Murray's First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is a series of alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions she faced throughout her tenure as a desk appearance ticket writer (a “DAT Writer”) at the DA's Office. She contends that defendants discriminated against her based on her race, failed to accommodate her disability (a chronic autoimmune skin condition called lichen planus), and retaliated against her for engaging in protected activities, including filing internal complaints, bringing an FLSA lawsuit, and requesting FMLA leave.

Pending now is defendants' motion to dismiss the FAC under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it in part.

I. Background

A. Relevant Factual Background^[1]

1. The Parties

Murray, an African American woman, was employed by the DA's Office between July 2004 and September 2023. FAC ¶¶28,31,119. She most recently worked there as a DAT Writer in the Complaint Room. Id. ¶ 30. Murray suffers from lichen planus, a chronic inflammatory autoimmune skin condition that causes painful lesions primarily on her legs and feet, making it difficult for her to dress and walk. Id. ¶ 21.

At the DA's Office, Murray's direct supervisor was Concetta Petrillo (deputy bureau chief), who is white; Petrillo's two supervisors were Odalys Alonso (executive assistant district attorney) and Rene Aponte (bureau chief of the desk appearance unit), both of whom are Hispanic. Id. ¶¶ 32-34. Petrillo and Alonso are close friends who attended school together. Id. ¶ 36. The FAC alleges that Alonso and Aponte favor Hispanic and white employees over African American employees. Id. ¶ 38.

2. Murray's Employment from July 2020 to September 2023

To assist the reader in navigating the FAC's complex and at times overlapping factual allegations, the Court has distilled from the Complaint the following largely chronological overview of Murray's experiences at the DA's Office between July 2020 and her departure in September 2023-the period on which the FAC focuses.

a. First Race Discrimination Complaint (July 2020)

In July 2020, Murray filed an Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaint with the DA's Office, alleging she had been denied a promotion based on her race. Id. ¶ 39. On January 28, 2021, an EEO Officer indicated to Murray that her claim was unsubstantiated, without explaining her right to appeal. Id. ¶¶ 40-41. Murray later obtained documents indicating that the stated reasons for denying her promotion were budget constraints and the lack of need for the position. Id. ¶ 42.

b. FLSA Lawsuit and Denial of Schedule Accommodation (July 2021)

On July 7, 2021, Murray filed a lawsuit in this District against defendants for unpaid overtime wages under the FLSA, which she served on July 13, 2021. Id. ¶¶ 50-51; see also id., Ex. B. The lawsuit contained one cause of action, seeking unpaid wages for the period of April 2020 through April 2021, in which Murray allegedly worked more than 40 hours a week due to the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic. See Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 28-31, 42-47, Murray v. City of New York, 21 Civ. 5835 (ALC) (VF) (S.D.N.Y.) [hereinafter, “2021 Compl.”].^[2] In February 2022, Murray and defendants settled the lawsuit, under a written Settlement Agreement, which was approved by the Court on May 19, 2022.^[3] FAC ¶ 63; see also id., Ex. C. On July 16, 2021, Murray requested a 30-minute schedule change to accommodate her childcare obligations. Id. ¶ 53. Petrillo denied that request, despite Murray's having prevailed on a union grievance concerning the matter. Id. Defendants had previously approved two of her schedule change requests, in February 2018 and early-to-mid 2019, without requiring documentation or approval from human resources (“HR”) or EEO, id. ¶¶ 55-57, and Petrillo herself had previously approved schedule change requests for other employees, id. ¶ 54, including Tatiana Avila, a Hispanic coworker of Murray's, who received approval for a schedule change request to accommodate childcare obligations in August 2019, id. ¶ 58. A few months later, in October 2021, Petrillo approved a schedule change request for a white coworker of Murray's, Teressa Caiola, to accommodate her childcare obligations. Id. ¶¶ 59-60.

c. Denial of Promotion and Transfer of Duties (October 2021)

On October 6, 2021, Adalgisa Mena, a Hispanic woman, was transferred to the administrative supervisor role in the DAT Unit without an interview, contrary to the DA's Office's usual practices. Id. ¶ 43. Mena was transferred into the DAT Unit as a result of a substantiated internal EEO complaint that Mena had given preferential treatment to Hispanic employees. Id. ¶ 44. Murray claims she was more qualified for the position but was denied the opportunity to apply or interview for it because of her race. Id. ¶¶ 46-49. After Mena's transfer, some of Murray's duties and responsibilities were reassigned to Mena. Id. ¶ 45.

d. Second Racial Discrimination Complaint, Negative Performance Evaluation, Reduction in Workload and Denial of Training (January - December 2022)

On January 27, 2022, Murray filed a charge of discrimination based upon race with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Id. ¶¶ 61-62.

In July 2022, Murray received an annual evaluation for the period of May 1, 2021 to April 30, 2022, drafted by Petrillo. Id. ¶ 65. Murray's score of 85 points was 14 points lower than her previous evaluation, but she had not received any feedback about declining productivity or poor work performance. Id. ¶¶ 65-67.

Throughout 2022, Murray's caseload was reduced to two to six cases per week, compared to 15 to 18 for other employees. Id. ¶¶ 95-96. Beginning around June 2022, Murray's requests for training on case drafting were denied, while other employees received such training. Id. ¶¶ 97-98.

e. Denial of Medical Leave and Childcare Accommodation (January 2023)

In October 2022, Murray's chronic skin condition grew more severe, and her physician prescribed a new treatment regimen, with visits to the doctor's office required two to three times per week. Id. ¶ 70. In early January 2023, having ignored an email from Murray that requested authorization to leave work early, Petrillo threatened to discipline Murray for failing to obtain such authorization. Id. ¶ 71.

On January 19, 2023, Murray requested to leave work early on February 1 and 8, 2023 for medical appointments. Id. ¶ 72. She also requested a shift change enabling her to leave 30 minutes early twice a week between January 24, 2023 and February 3, 2023 to attend school with her children. See id. ¶ 72. Petrillo initially approved the medical request but denied the schedule shift, referring Murray to HR and EEO. Id. ¶ 73. An EEO officer informed Murray that the DA's Office did not accommodate employees for school reasons, but that a manager could make the accommodation “in good faith.” Id. ¶ 75. In 2018 or 2019, a white coworker of Murray's, Netanya Pierrot, requested and received a schedule change to accommodate school attendance. Id. ¶ 74.

On January 24, 2023, Petrillo sent an email to Murray revoking her prior approval to leave work early for medical appointments, denying any other schedule change she requested, and suggesting Murray transfer to another unit. Id. ¶ 76. Petrillo, in contrast, frequently approved leave for other employees in Murray's unit. Id. ¶ 77. For example, Petrillo approved nine weeks of vacation in three-week intervals for Victor Toledo and Rosa Salcedo, both Hispanic coworkers of Murray's. Id. ¶ 78.

f. Disciplinary Actions and Transfer (February and March 2023)

On February 15, 2023, Murray filed a charge against defendants with the New York State Division of Human Rights (the “NYS Division of Human Rights”), alleging discrimination based upon familial status. Id. ¶ 79. Later that month, Murray received a notice reprimanding her for her excessive lateness based on events allegedly occurring in December 2022, which she was required to sign and return to Petrillo. Id. ¶ 80. On March 8, 2023, Murray entered Petrillo's office early in the morning to leave the signed warning, allegedly with Petrillo's consent. Id. ¶¶ 82-83. In March 2023, after a complaint by Petrillo about Murray having entered her office, Murray received a formal written warning. Id. ¶ 89. In April 2023, Murray was transferred to a different department with a demotion in duties, a lesser title (trial preparation assistant), and a changed work schedule that interfered with her childcare obligations. Id. ¶¶ 92-93, 99.

g. FMLA Leave Request, Alleged Interference, and Murray's Resignation (March to September 2023)

On March 22, 2023, Murray requested intermittent FMLA leave for the same treatment of her chronic skin condition. Id. ¶ 100. At first, HR approved Murray's eligibility to take FMLA leave. Id. ¶ 101. Murray provided the necessary documentation from her physician, plus information regarding future...