Source: cases/42usc1981/f-supp-3d-368-489-sosa-v-nyc-dept-of-educ.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_368/0489_01/index.html
Without an identifiable adverse employment action, Sosa's claims for race and skin color discrimination under § 1981 and § 1983 must be dismissed.
Plaintiff must do more than make conclusory legal allegations that she is substantially similar to her colleagues in order to adequately plead this claim.
Accordingly, based on its de novo review, the Court adopts the R & R's recommendation that the Plaintiff's § 1981 and Title VII disparate treatment claims be dismissed.
Thus, this objection does not provide a basis for rejecting or modifying the R & R and the Court adopts the R & R's recommendation that Plaintiff's § 1981, Title VII, and ADA claims of hostile work environment be dismissed.
casedsl 1.2 # author: Flash2 (gemini-3.8-flash-high) # triaged-by: Fable (2026-11-10) case /f-supp-3d/368/0489-01 name Sosa v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ. & Marcy Berger cite 368 F. Supp. 3d 489 (2019) court United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York date 2019-03-25 url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_368/0489_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_368.jsonl sha1=c28b8dc37d0782b6ffbeb8a95c20ac2512462e7f chars=60000 opinion order : order by Chen @0..16581 controlling opinion rr : order by Bulsara, M.J. (report and recommendation, adopted in its entirety by the order) @16581..60000 controlling ? opinion: the R & R is a magistrate judge's recommendation, not a lower-court ruling; it is marked controlling because Judge Chen's order adopts it "in its entirety". The IR text is capped at 60000 chars, so the R & R's disparate-treatment, hostile-environment and retaliation sections are cut off. law 42usc1981 role applied posture civil; public-school teacher's Section 1981 claims (brought through Section 1983) of race and skin-color discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation; Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss granted on adoption of the magistrate judge's R & R, with leave to amend (E.D.N.Y.) result claimant-lost element protected-person : satisfied [pleaded] by rr route race pattern african-american-teacher-of-west-indian-origin fact @19449..19545 [supports] | Sosa identifies as an African American woman of West Indian origin, with darker-hued skin color. element own-contract : satisfied [pleaded] by rr route employment-relationship pattern public-school-special-education-teacher fact @18950..19116 [supports] | Sosa has been employed with the NYCDOE since 1996 and has been a special education teacher since 2004 at P4Q@213, which is located at 67th Avenue in Queens, New York. element contractual-impairment : not-satisfied [pleaded] by rr route materially-adverse-change pattern partial-denial-and-delay-of-schedule-accommodation-letters-to-file-and-unevenly-applied-workplace-rules rule @50247..50390 [quoted] | "A plaintiff sustains an adverse employment action if he or she endures a materially adverse change in the terms and conditions of employment." fact @52744..52933 [supports] | As to the failure to accommodate and the related delay, Sosa alleges Defendants failed to provide her with a single prep period on one day of the work week, as she had originally requested. fact @53276..53475 [cuts-against] | For one thing, because she received almost everything she asked for, there was no negative change in her employment conditions; and one prep period cannot be seen as anything but a de minimis change. fact @55541..55719 [supports] | As to the allegations of professional misconduct, Sosa alleges Defendants improperly accused her of missing work, which resulted in at least two disciplinary letters in her file. fact @57389..57585 [cuts-against absent] | Accepting that Sosa was treated differently with respect to these items, there is no allegation they affected her pay, are related to benefits or privileges of employment, or evidenced a demotion. held @58247..58393 | Without an identifiable adverse employment action, Sosa's claims for race and skin color discrimination under § 1981 and § 1983 must be dismissed. gloss The district judge overruled the objection to this part of the R & R and adopted it (order @8641..9057). element racial-intent : not-satisfied [pleaded] by order route comparator pattern unnamed-caucasian-teachers-whose-scheduling-requests-were-granted rule @13966..14120 | Plaintiff must do more than make conclusory legal allegations that she is substantially similar to her colleagues in order to adequately plead this claim. fact @15013..15177 [supports] | Plaintiff alleges that "defendants regularly granted the requests of other Caucasian, non-African American teachers for scheduling changes and classroom transfers." fact @15199..15367 [cuts-against absent] | However, Plaintiff "fails to describe who these people are, what their responsibilities were, how their workplace conduct compared to [hers], or how they were treated." fact @14531..14611 [cuts-against] | Here, the fact that Plaintiff and her colleagues are all teachers is not enough. held @15791..15959 | Accordingly, based on its de novo review, the Court adopts the R & R's recommendation that the Plaintiff's § 1981 and Title VII disparate treatment claims be dismissed. element hostile-environment : not-satisfied [pleaded] by order route _whole pattern only-teacher-of-her-origin-and-skin-color-in-unit-without-facts-linking-treatment-to-race fact @11515..11844 [supports] | Plaintiff's allegations that she "is the only teacher of West Indian Origin in her unit at P4Q@PS213," that she "is the teacher with the darkest skin color," and that she "is the only African American teacher in her unit at P4Q@PS213 with a disability" (Complaint at ¶¶ 16-18) are not enough to support an inference of causation. fact @11198..11438 [cuts-against absent] | However, the facts alleged by Plaintiff in her complaint and attached exhibits do not support any inference "that a hostile work environment was created and existed because of [her] protected status, either race, color, or national origin." held @12673..12896 | Thus, this objection does not provide a basis for rejecting or modifying the R & R and the Court adopts the R & R's recommendation that Plaintiff's § 1981, Title VII, and ADA claims of hostile work environment be dismissed. gloss Decided on the because-of-race requirement of the hostile-environment test only; severity or pervasiveness was assumed arguendo by the R & R and not decided (order @9149..10654). ? route: no route for the because-of-protected-status (race causation) prong of the hostile-environment test