Brandon Hanks is a black police officer with the City of Syracuse, New York. The Syracuse Police Department maintains a prestigious unit called the Gun Violence Taskforce (GVTF). Hanks applied for a temporary position with the GVTF in hopes that it would advance his career. After being nominated for the position, several officers in the GVTF – all of whom were white – prepared a memorandum at their supervisor’s direction raising concerns about Hanks’ candidacy. Specifically, the memo detailed several incidents and social media posts where Hanks had purportedly affiliated with “gang members and convicted criminals,” and referred to several videos Hanks had posted on social media that depicted him in uniform while listening to a rap song while using vulgar and explicit language. The memo also indicated that these videos had been forwarded to a deputy chief in the Department – one who Hanks alleged had used a racial slur in the past.
The memo expressed concern that Hanks was tagged in a known gang member’s post asking Hanks to “come pick up his shirt” and that Hanks’ social media accounts featured other posts where gang members asked him questions about police-related topics. It also documented incidents where Hanks was allegedly present at the scene of a shooting while off duty and was in a car that was pulled over along with suspected gang members who were drinking. The memo further detailed several other social media posts that potentially violated the Department’s code of conduct, including a video where Hanks “identified himself as a police officer” and used explicit language, as well as other clips – for which Hanks was later disciplined – that depicted Hanks in uniform with an explicit rap song playing in the background.
Hanks filed a claim with the EEOC, alleging that the memo was a racially motivated attempt to undermine his candidacy to the GVTF. About a week later, Hanks received a written reprimand for violating the Department’s social media policy, which he claimed was in retaliation for filing the EEOC complaint. After the EEOC issued Hanks a right-to-sue letter, he sued the City and several of its police chiefs and officers under several federal and state statutes, claiming discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The trial court dismissed all of Hanks’ claims; he appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed.
In dismissing the discrimination claim, the Court noted that Hanks had to allege that his employer took adverse action against him, and the adverse action was racially motivated. The Court determined that he met neither requirement. Although Hanks alleged that the memo resulted in him being passed over for the GVTF assignment, he did not make any allegations as to who was involved in that decision, and what specific role the memo played in that decision. Hanks also failed to allege that his non-assignment to the GVTF was racially motivated because the memo cited specific, concrete incidents which might cast Hanks’ candidacy into doubt. The memo did not rely on racial stereotypes, but rather verifiable claims that Hanks was unfit for the position.
Regarding the hostile workplace allegation, the Court concluded that Hanks simply failed to state a claim: “The GVTF memo does not create a plausible inference of discriminatory intent. Hanks’ generalized allegations of discrimination within the Department are wholly ‘conclusory’ and woefully short on details. Even if a deputy chief used racial slurs in the past, those incidents occurred at least four years before Hanks joined the force. Hanks does not allege that the deputy chief ever used such language again, much less in connection with Hanks’ employment.”
The Court rejected Hanks’ argument that he received a written reprimand in retaliation for filing an EEOC complaint. While the Court agreed that the nine days between Hanks’ complaint and the written reprimand was short enough to support an inference of retaliation, he failed to prove that the written reprimand was an adverse employment action. “The letter imposed no tangible consequences on Hanks; if anything, it contemplated that Hanks would not face any discipline unless he continued to violate the policy in the ‘future’ Because Hanks cannot point to any injury or harm that flowed from the reprimand, he cannot invoke it in support of his retaliation claim.”
Hanks v. City of Syracuse, No. 22-2819, 2023 WL 8889764 (2nd Cir.).