Mauvareen BEVERLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP., Mitchell Katz, Individually and as Chief Operating Officer of New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. and individually, Stanley Brezenoff, Individually and as Interim Chief Operating Officer and President of New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., Plachikkat V. Anantharam, Individually and as Chief Financial Officer of New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., Defendants-Appellees.*
Plaintiff-Appellant Mauvareen Beverley appeals a March 30, 2020 judgment of the District Court (“March 30 Dismissal”) dismissing her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The FAC asserted claims of retaliation and discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, and age against Defendants-Appellees New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, Mitchel Katz, Stanley Brezenoff, and Plachikkat Anantharam (“Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and under the New York City Human Rights Law, NYC Admin. Code 8-107 et seq. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
The District Court dismissed Beverley's discrimination claims principally on the ground that Beverley failed to plead facts giving rise to an inference of discriminatory animus and dismissed Beverley's retaliation claims on the ground that Beverley failed to allege both when she complained to her supervisors and the substance of those complaints. On May 1, 2020, (having already filed this appeal) Beverley moved for reconsideration of the March 30 Dismissal and for leave to amend her complaint. By an Opinion and Order of September 25, 2020 the District Court denied Beverley's motion for reconsideration but also (1) clarified that the March 30 Dismissal was without prejudice and (2) expressly declined to hold that any further opportunity to amend would be futile. The District Court denied Beverley's request for leave to amend without prejudice, subject to refiling upon resolution of this appeal.
Because the District Court is prepared to entertain a renewed motion for leave to amend, we think it premature to rule on Beverley's appeal and we intimate no opinion as to its merits. We vacate the March 30 Dismissal and remand the case to the District Court to consider whether to grant Beverley leave to amend.
For the foregoing reasons, we VACATE the March 30, 2020 judgment of the District Court and REMAND the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this order.