District Judge Kenneth M. Karas

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Plaintiff, a black man of Haitian descent, was a correction officer for the Rockland Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t for over 20 years. His Oct. 22, 2015 race discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act related to disciplinary charges brought on June 27, Sept. 10, Dec. 27, 2013 and a poor evaluation on Dec. 26, 2013. Despite conceding his initial EEOC complaint was filed on Nov. 17, 2014 he argued discrimination claims predating Jan. 21, 2014 were not time-barred by the 300-day EEOC limitations period because they could be considered as part of a continuing practice and policy of discrimination under the continuing violation policy. Plaintiff’s claim over an April 14, 2014 disciplinary charge was unaffected by dismissal of his claims predating Jan. 21, 2014. The court noted disciplinary acts and negative evaluations are “discrete acts of discrimination” insufficient to invoke the continuing violation policy. Deeming plaintiff’s claim one for disparate treatment, the court further noted he did not plead the elements of a hostile work environment claim. Given his expressed intent to do so, the court permitted an amended complaint setting forth a hostile work environment claim, as well as allegations regarding retaliation by defendants, to be filed.

District Judge Kenneth M. Karas

 

Read Full- Text Decision

Plaintiff, a black man of Haitian descent, was a correction officer for the Rockland Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t for over 20 years. His Oct. 22, 2015 race discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act related to disciplinary charges brought on June 27, Sept. 10, Dec. 27, 2013 and a poor evaluation on Dec. 26, 2013. Despite conceding his initial EEOC complaint was filed on Nov. 17, 2014 he argued discrimination claims predating Jan. 21, 2014 were not time-barred by the 300-day EEOC limitations period because they could be considered as part of a continuing practice and policy of discrimination under the continuing violation policy. Plaintiff’s claim over an April 14, 2014 disciplinary charge was unaffected by dismissal of his claims predating Jan. 21, 2014. The court noted disciplinary acts and negative evaluations are “discrete acts of discrimination” insufficient to invoke the continuing violation policy. Deeming plaintiff’s claim one for disparate treatment, the court further noted he did not plead the elements of a hostile work environment claim. Given his expressed intent to do so, the court permitted an amended complaint setting forth a hostile work environment claim, as well as allegations regarding retaliation by defendants, to be filed.