DOE v. ANONYMOUS INC (2020)

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe (“Doe”) appeals from the judgment of the District Court (Crotty, J.) dismissing her complaint as time-barred. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and arguments on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm.

On October 17, 2018, Doe sued Defendants-Appellees John Doe (“John”) and Anonymous Inc. (together, “Defendants”) under the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–107, for gender discrimination, quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge.¹ The NYCHRL requires a plaintiff to file suit within three years “after the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice or act of discriminatory harassment or violence ․ occurred.” N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-502(d).

Doe’s complaint fails to identify any discriminatory or harassing conduct that post-dates October 17, 2015, the start of the NYCHRL’s limitations period for her claims in light of her October 17, 2018 filing date. Indeed, she does not identify any conduct—unlawful or otherwise—taken by John or Anonymous Inc. during the three years that precede her filing. Instead, all of Doe’s allegations concern conduct that occurred before October 17, 2015. The complaint alleges, for example, that John verbally and physically harassed Doe before demoting her in November 2014 from her salaried position at Anonymous Inc. Doe does not, however, identify any incidents of harassment that occurred after her 2014 demotion. Doe also alleges that, following her demotion, John promised her “that perhaps there would be an opportunity for [her] to be a salaried employee of Anonymous Inc. again ‘when the time’ was right.” App’x 23. Without more, however, those vague statements do not rise to the level of “unwanted gender-based conduct” that is actionable under the NYCHRL and, even if they did, the complaint does not allege that John made such promises after October 17, 2015. Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102, 110 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, although Doe claims that she “decided to constructively discharge herself” from Anonymous Inc. on October 21, 2015, App’x 23, she does not connect her decision to any discriminatory conduct that occurred within the limitations period.

Nor can Doe avoid the NYCHRL’s time-bar by invoking the continuing violation doctrine. For that doctrine to apply, a plaintiff must allege some act of discrimination or harassment that occurred during the applicable limitations period. See Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth., 61 A.D.3d 62, 81, 872 N.Y.S.2d 27 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 2009) (holding that the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to plaintiff’s NYCHRL claim because plaintiff failed to allege any “actionable conduct during the limitations period”). Because Doe failed to do so here, the District Court correctly dismissed her NYCHRL claims as untimely.

* * *

We have considered Doe’s remaining arguments and conclude that they are without merit. The District Court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Doe first filed suit in New York County Supreme Court. Defendants successfully removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.