United States District Court, S.D. New York
Hyman Brodt, Plaintiff, Pro se, Brooklyn, NY.
For City of New York, Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications, Lee Dicke, individually, Michael Bimonte, individually, Defendants: Laura C. Rowntree, LEAD ATTORNEY, New York City Law Department, New York, NY.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
P. Kevin Castel, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Hyman Brodt, who represents himself pro se, brings thirteen claims of religious discrimination and retaliation against the City of New York (the " City" ), its Department of Information Technology
& Telecommunications (the " IT Department" ) and two individual defendants, Lee Dicke and Michael Bimonte.
Brodt alleges that he was terminated and denied promotions under the pretext of budget limitations, when, in reality, the defendants discriminated against him on the basis of his Jewish faith. Plaintiff brings claims of retaliation and religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. McKinney's Executive Law § 296, and the New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative Code § 8-107. Plaintiff also asserts that the defendants violated the protection of free exercise of religion enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I of the New York Constitution, and equal protection under the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the New York Constitution.
Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P. For the reasons explained below, the Complaint fails to state a federal claim against the defendants. First, the IT Department is not an entity capable of being sued, and Brodt has agreed to voluntarily withdraw all claims against it. Second, Title VII does not permit Brodt's claims against two individual supervisors, Lee Dicke and Michael Bimonte. Third, the Complaint fails to state claims of discrimination or retaliation under Title VII against the City or any other defendant, and does not plausibly allege violations of the United States Constitution. The Complaint therefore fails to state a federal claim for relief. The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Brodt's remaining claims brought under New York law.
In reviewing the Complaint, the Court accepts all non-conclusory factual allegations as true, and draws every reasonable inference in favor of the plaintiff as the non-movant. See In re Elevator Antitrust Litig., 502 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 2007) (per curiam).
In February 1999, the IT Department hired Brodt as a computer specialist. (Compl't ¶ 28.) He passed a civil service exam for the computer specialist position in March 2001. (Compl't ¶ 29.) In May 2003, the IT Department terminated him from the computer specialist position. (Compl't ¶ 30.) Brodt was told that his termination was due to budget cuts, but, believing that this explanation was a pretext for discrimination, on May 23, 2003, he filed " an internal EEO complaint of an unlawful employment discrimination against [the IT Department]." (Compl't ¶ ¶ 30-31.) On July 3, 2003, he withdrew the complaint after accepting a new IT Department position as associate staff analyst. (Compl't ...