A former civil servant has launched a discrimination lawsuit against the New York City Law Department, the branch of the government that handles the city’s legal affairs.
Dwayne A Parham, Esq. alleges that while he was employed in the Law Department, he had to put up with racial slurs from supervisors, was effectively isolated, and was ultimately fired after he spoke out against his treatment.
In response to requests for comment about the Parham v. City of New York case, a spokesperson for the NYC Law Department, better known as the Office of the Corporation Counsel, declined to comment. He said they’re not commenting on the case while it’s still being litigated.
In contrast, Parham said he is eager to talk about what he went through. He’s now opened a law firm in Montgomery, Ala., where he works on immigration and criminal law cases, but the discrimination he went through was devastating; he said he wants to highlight the lasting financial and psychological trauma caused by the city’s discrimination against him.
“I missed out on a lot of health benefits because city workers have great health benefits, especially in the law department. … It was extremely depressing, especially [because] I’m a father — I have girls that I’m taking care of. And it was so depressing trying to get a job, because a lot of times, some of the interviews I went on, I would see on the person’s desk they [had the listing of my work with the] City of New York. They call my references, or call the old job, and guess what? I’m not going to get a callback.
“It’s sad because there are a lot of people who go through that in different city agencies. That’s why I said [that] I have to take a stand for people like that — so people don’t [have to feel] like, ‘This is all I have,’ especially as a civil servant. Obviously, I was fortunate enough to know that I can just open up my own law practice. It would be a struggle, but I can do that. A lot of people don’t have that luxury.”
Not to be tolerated
Parham’s difficulties in the Law Department started shortly after he joined in May 2018. He was initially hired as a temp before being brought on as a claims specialist in the special litigation unit.
He wasn’t a practicing attorney, but had graduated from law school and had his degree. Designated a claim specialist plus, he was able to do depositions and write briefs. But by July 2018, Parham said he realized that his supervisor, Michael Finkelstein, was making race-based comments about him that were entirely inappropriate.
In court filings, Finkelstein is accused of referring to Parham as someone who “of course … would be good at making fried chicken.” The lawsuit also claims that Finkelstein offered watermelon-flavored candy to Parham and said it was “your favorite flavor.” In November 2018, Finkelstein allegedly stood between Parham and another Black employee and announced, “Hey, what do we make [. . .] an Oreo.”
“I started seeing certain things and hearing certain things that I didn’t like,” Parham told the AmNews, “which is why I put in my complaint. And then once I started … calling him out on that, he didn’t like that. That’s when they started nitpicking at certain things that on the surface looked like nothing.”
The Law Department was becoming a racially hostile work environment, Parham alleges. The lawsuit claims that even his direct supervisor, Joseph Segreti, called Black people “lazy” and referred to the office support staff as “lint on a jacket.”
At one point, Parham said he and three other Black claim specialists were seated in front of a computer analyzing a video, but their supervisors seemed to believe they were just wasting time, trying to avoid work. One supervisor sent them an email asking them to move some empty boxes instead of watching the video. “We literally were doing work at the time,” Parham insisted.
He replied to the email, “ I asked him, in the email, ‘inquiring minds want to know: How come we’re the ones being singled out?’ He said, ‘Because you guys didn’t look like you were doing anything.’ And that’s when I replied, ‘Look, this has been going on for quite some time now, the way you address us and speak to us. We haven’t said anything, thinking it’s going to blow over, but this is not okay. That’s not going to be tolerated.’”
Parham was ordered to come to his supervisor’s office for an unplanned employee evaluation, but he said he refused; he was not going to see his supervisor without the presence of a union representative.
Discriminated against as a Black man
In 2019, Parham filed a complaint with the Law Department’s Equal Employment Opportunity Office (EEOC), but still felt he was being harassed by his supervisors. Later, after he also filed a complaint with the New York City Commission on Human Rights, the Law Department’s EEOC told him they could no longer legally conduct an internal investigation of his case.
Against his wishes, Parham was transferred from the special litigation unit to the special federal litigation unit, where he faced isolation from his more than 80 colleagues, an overwhelming caseload, minimal guidance, and significant delays in receiving the necessary equipment to work from home once the COVID-19 lockdowns began. In 2021, Parham was terminated from the department.
Parham has been representing himself in this discrimination case. Initially, he tried to hire legal representation, but he said he couldn’t get anyone to take his case. “It’s funny, because when I reached out to attorneys to handle the case, a lot of them were saying, ‘Well, you don’t really have a case here. It’s not going to survive the motions to dismiss.’ Obviously, that was wrong.
“I think a lot of times it comes down to not being able to empathize with your client. Attorneys that I’ve had wouldn’t have that ability because they wouldn’t even know what it is to be discriminated against as a Black man, especially in the legal profession.”
Attorneys for the Law Department filed a motion to dismiss Parham’s case, in part because they said the racially motivated comments were isolated and not proof of discrimination. Acting Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Hasa Kingo denied their motion — he found Parham’s hostile work environment claims valid and said the derogatory and degrading comments were not just isolated incidents. The judge wrote that “Plaintiff claims that he was ‘clucked’ at and subjected to invidious fried chicken comments approximately 40 to 50 times over the span of months,” and said incidents like these affected Parham’s ability to do his job.
Kingo has recommended that the Law Department meet with Parham in the coming weeks to negotiate a settlement for this case.