Sex Discrimination Claim Dismissed; Disagreement With Opposite-Sex Employee Not Enough

In Chibuzor v. Dr. Steven Corwin et al, 2020 WL 6905304 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2020), the court, inter alia, dismissed plaintiff’s sex-based discrimination claim asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

After summarizing the pertinent law, the court applied it to the facts:

Here, Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting that his sex was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment. Plaintiff simply alleges that he was suspended and then fired after a female employee “punched/poked/hit” him in the side and then reported the incident to security. ECF No. 3, at 10. Other than stating that the other employee was female, Plaintiff alleges no facts suggesting his sex had any bearing whatsoever on the events alleged in the complaint. And the mere fact that he had an incident or disagreement with an employee of the opposite sex does not suggest that his sex was a motivating factor in his termination. See, e.g., Amofa v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr., No. 05-CV-9230 (SHS), 2006 WL 3316278, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006) (finding that the “mere fact” that a plaintiff and supervisor with whom he argued were of different races was not evidence of discriminatory conduct); George v. New York City Health & Hosp. Corp., No. 02-CV-1818 (AGS), 2003 WL 289617, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2003) (“The mere fact that plaintiff and her supervisor were not of the same race … does not, in and of itself, indicate that the supervisor’s conduct towards plaintiff was motivated by discrimination.”). Moreover, the complaint alleges that it was not a female, but another male — Mr. Curtis Kellner — who made the decision to terminate Plaintiff’s employment, further undermining the plausibility of his assertion that he was fired because of his sex. See Chi Ho Lin v. New York City Admin. For Children’s Servs., No. 99-CV-10304 (LAP), 2003 WL 21973361, at *7 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 19, 2003) (noting that “many of the events about which plaintiff complains involved actions taken by [a supervisor] who is of both the same race and national origin as plaintiff”).

Share This: