MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pro se plaintiff Andre K. Antrobus brought an action under Title VII in state court against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Sanitation, alleging that defendants discriminated against him on the basis of sex. His amended complaint asserts disparate treatment and retaliation claims arising from defendants’ failure to promote him as a computer associate. Defendants removed the action to federal court, and they now move for a partial dismissal. That motion is granted. All claims against the New York City Department of Sanitation are dismissed with prejudice. All claims against the City of New York based on alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts before November 17, 2017 are also dismissed with prejudice. Further, I dismiss without prejudice plaintiff’s claim that defendants retaliated against him each time they failed to promote him to computer associate. Plaintiff’s claims of disparate treatment based on acts taken on or after November 17, 2017 may proceed against the City of New York. BACKGROUND The following factual allegations are taken from the complaint and documents incorporated in the complaint by reference. Plaintiff’s papers opposing the motion to dismiss have also been considered when helpful to clarify the pleadings. See Walker v. Schult, 717 F.3d 119, 122 n.1 (2d Cir. 2013); Milano v. Astrue, 05-CV-6527, 2007 WL 2668511, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007). A. Factual Background Andre K. Antrobus is a black man of West Indian descent. See Compl. at 1 (Dkt. #1-2); Pl.’s Affirmation in Opp’n to Defs.’ Partial Mot. to Dismiss (“Opp’n”) 2 (Dkt. #16). In 2001, he started working as a clerical associate for the New York City Department of Sanitation (“DSNY”). See Opp’n
1, 3. Not long after, he began to experience “racism and national origin-based discrimination from [his] coworkers and supervisors, including but not limited to derogatory name-calling and unwarranted discipline and payroll deductions.” Opp’n 5. In 2011, Mr. Antrobus sued DSNY under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See Antrobus v. City of New York, 11-CV-5434, 2016 WL 5390120, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2016). In 2016, Judge Amon adopted a report and recommendation granting summary judgment to DSNY. Id. at *2. Since then, plaintiff alleges that DSNY has “blacklisted [him] from further promotion” in “retaliation for having sued.” Opp’n 6. He alleges that he has “not received a single promotion” even though he has “applied for multiple promotions since [his] race discrimination case ended” in 2016. Id. 8. He blames in part Teresa Neal for these decisions. See id 7. Ms. Neal, the current Director of DSNY’s Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, allegedly “knows about [his] 2011 lawsuit and has maintained a long-time grudge against [him].” Ibid. He also blames Director Nancy Reilly and Deputy Director Kisha Shrouder, who work in DSNY’s human resources department, alleging that they prefer “promoting females over males.” Id. 28. Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants DSNY and the City of New York discriminated against him on the basis of sex when they failed to promote him to computer associate. See id. 31. In 2016, plaintiff took the relevant civil service exam, and he received a perfect score. See id.
