Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ramos v. New York City Dep't of Correction

August 14, 2006

DARRELL RAMOS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph F. Bianco, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Darrell Ramos is an employee of defendant New York City Department of Correction ("DOC"). In this employment discrimination case, Ramos contends that DOC discriminated against him because of his race. Pursuant to leave of this Court in a prior Memorandum and Order, dated April 26, 2006, Ramos filed an amended complaint. See Ramos v. DOC, 2006 WL 1120631, at *7-*8 (E.D.N.Y. April 26, 2006). DOC moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the amended complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Facts*fn1

The facts were described in detail in this Court's prior Memorandum and Order ("Ramos I"). See Ramos I, 2006 WL 1120631, at *1. The Court will summarize and restate only the relevant facts for this motion, as well as additional facts learned from the moving papers.

On May 31, 2002, Ramos was fired from his position as a correction officer at Rikers Island because his employer learned that he had two prior arrests. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5.) Plaintiff successfully grieved his dismissal from DOC to his union, and was reinstated by DOC on September 3, 2002. (Id. ¶ 6.) After his reinstatement, he repeatedly asked for, but never received, back pay. (Id.) The remaining issue in this case is whether DOC discriminated against him based on his race by not giving him back pay for the period he was out of work, from May 31, 2002 through September 3, 2002.

Ramos testified in a deposition in a separate action, Monclova v. City of New York, No. 05-CV-3164 (DGT)(LB), and he was asked about DOC's refusal to give him back-pay:

Q: When you returned to work September 3, 2002, were you informed whether or not you were receiving back-pay?

A: No.

Q: Did you complain to your union at that time for not receiving back-pay?

A: I called the first vice president.

Q: What, if anything, were you told by the first ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.