Hanks v. City of Syracuse

4 Citing cases

  1. Francois v. Brentwood Union Free Sch. Dist.

    21-CV-6265 (ENV) (AYS) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2024)

    k, 163 F.Supp.3d 27, 53 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (finding that plaintiff “raised triable issues of fact as to whether the withholding of documents, stripping of responsibilities, hostility, assignment to an isolated cubicle, failure to receive a multiline telephone, and malfunctioning security badge constitute adverse actions”); Young v. Town of Islip, No. 13-CV-4713 (ADS) (ARL), 2017 WL 5468752, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2017) (granting plaintiff's motion for a new trial on her retaliation claim where she was “given written reprimands; was sent home without pay on one occasion; had a reduction in responsibilities; did not receive information vital to her job performance; and lost her health insurance earlier than she should have”); Nezaj v. PS450 Bar & Rest., 719 F.Supp.3d 318, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2024) (“Taking away an employee's responsibilities can constitute an adverse retaliatory action.”); cf. Hanks v. City of Syracuse, No. 22-2819, 2023 WL 8889764, at *3 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2023) (summary order) (no adverse employment action where plaintiff received a letter from his employer that “imposed no tangible consequences”). Thus, this claim is plausible, at least with respect to Dr. Escorbores. Since the retaliation claim against Dr. Escorbores satisfies the Iqbal standard and, contrary to the recommendation in the R&R, is not barred by the applicable New York statute of limitations, the objection of plaintiff to the R&R is sustained to that extent, the R&R is modified by this order, and as modified, the R&R on the claims against Dr. Escorbores is adopted as the opinion of the court.

  2. Mitchel v. Planned Parenthood of Greater N.Y., Inc.

    1:23-cv-01932 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2024)   Cited 3 times

    Even if that comment was indecorous, Plaintiff does not plausibly allege that it “reflected discriminatory intent,” let alone that it “played a motivating factor in [any] adverse employment action” by PPGNY against Plaintiff. Hanks v. City of Syracuse, No. 22-2819, 2023 WL 8889764, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2023) (summary order) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see, e.g., Bramble, 2024 WL 705955, at *3 (question “unconnected to any purported adverse employment decision” was “insufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent”); Gittens-Bridges v. City of New York, No. 22-810, 2023 WL 8825342, at *2 (2d Cir. Dec. 21, 2023) (summary order) (similar); see also Henry v. Wyeth Pharms., Inc., 616 F.3d 134, 150 (2d Cir. 2010)

  3. Stoddard v. City of Hartford

    3:23-cv-01293 (JAM) (D. Conn. May. 23, 2024)

    Under Monell, “a municipality can face suit under section 1983 only if its ‘failure to train, or the policies or customs that it has sanctioned, led to an independent constitutional violation.'” Hanks v. City of Syracuse, 2023 WL 8889764, at *4 (2d Cir. 2023) (quoting Segal v. City of New York, 459 F.3d 207, 219 (2d Cir. 2006)). Put simply, “a Monell claim cannot succeed without an independent constitutional violation.”

  4. Holyoke v. S.S.I., Medi.

    6:23-CV-1557 (MAD/MJK) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2024)

    This alone would support dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Hanks v. City of Syracuse, No. 5:21-CV-921, 2022 WL 4619877, *3 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2022), aff'd, No. 22-2819, 2023 WL 8889764 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2023). Nevertheless, Magistrate Judge Baxter proceeded to explain that, because the City of Utica and Oneida County are municipalities, in order to state a claim against them, Plaintiff would have to plead a constitutional violation and a policy or custom.