Judge JON O. NEWMAN dissents with a separate opinion.
PARKER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Marva Brown appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge), entered September 22, 1997, dismissing Brown’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. and N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq., that Defendant-Appellee Coach Stores, Inc. (“Coach”) discriminated against her on the basis of her race. The district court held that Brown’s second amended complaint failed to state a claim because Brown neglected to allege that she applied for, was qualified for and was rejected from, any specific position or positions at Coach. The court also held that Brown failed to adequately allege a claim of disparate impact.
I. BACKGROUND
Marva Brown is an African-American who has worked as a receptionist in Coach’s Human Resource Department at its headquarters in Manhattan since 1988. In December 1996, Brown, through her attorney, filed a Notice of Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In this charge, she claimed that despite repeated requests to be promoted, Coach had refused to promote her and had instead promoted dozens of non-minority employees and “scarcely any” minorities. She also claimed that one of her co-employees at Coach told her that she looked “black like a real nigger” when she returned from a vacation, a comment for which the employee was not sanctioned, and that she was routinely excluded from business meetings and holiday parties held by her department.
In January 1997, Brown filed a complaint in the district court asserting claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. and N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq. Brown filed an amended complaint dated March 7, 1997, adding claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a, 1983. Coach moved to dismiss the amended complaint asserting that it did not state a claim because it failed to allege the dates upon which Brown sought a promotion and the position or positions to which she applied. Coach also argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the ADEA claim because it was not raised in Brown’s EEOC charge.
At a hearing on the motion to dismiss in April 1997, the district court agreed with Coach that Brown had to specify a particular time when she sought a promotion to a specific position or positions and was denied in favor of a nonminority or she would fail to state a prima facie case of discrimination. The district court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice while offering to allow Brown a month to engage in discovery prior to filing her second amended complaint. Brown’s counsel agreed, however, that he could cure the amended complaint’s deficiencies without further discovery and declined the district court’s offer.
Brown filed the second amended complaint dated May 12, 1997, removing the ADEA claim and the claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but reasserting the remainder of the previous claims. She asserted that “[e]om-mencing in approximately 1990 and continuing at least through August of 1996, [she] has repeatedly requested a promotion.” Specifically, Brown contended that in August 1995 and August 1996 she requested a promotion during her annual evaluation. According to the second amended complaint, during her employment with Coach she was qualified for promotion to “[d]ozens to hundreds” of open positions including “secretary,” “administrative assistant” and “human resources assistant.” Brown asserted that she was told repeatedly by supervisors that she was “too valuable in her current position to promote.”
[709]*709Brown alleged that she was told by her supervisors that Coach “seeks to hire and promote people who have a ‘Coach look’ — the examples to whom her supervisors referred were young non-minority persons.” Further, Brown alleged that one of her supervisors made several discriminatory remarks about minorities. The second amended complaint also made allegations which were not asserted in the original EEOC charge regarding Coach’s employment practices toward minorities as a whole. Brown points to EEOC statistics which show a low proportion of minority employees in management positions at Coach. Thus, Brown claims that Coach’s hiring and promotion practices have a discriminatory impact on minorities.
Coach moved to dismiss the second amended complaint again arguing that Brown had failed to state a prima facie ease because she failed to “indicate whether there was any open position at Coach for which she was qualified, she applied and was rejected, and which was given to another person.”
The district court granted Coach’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that Brown had failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), because “[njowhere ... does the Amended Complaint allege any specific position for which plaintiff applied, was qualified, and was rejected.” The court noted that in the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Brown’s counsel conceded that “ ‘[tjhere is no allegation that Ms. Brown asked at a specific time for a specific job.’ ”
As to Brown’s disparate impact claim, the court found her statistics “very general,” noting that they failed to take account of the various types of positions at Coach, the qualifications required for promotion and the relevant minority composition of the applicant pool. The court noted that even if the statistics were sufficient to establish disparities in the relevant workpools, Brown’s case would fail because she has not alleged a causal relationship between a Coach policy or practice and the underrepresentation of minorities in certain jobs.
Brown filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. See Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir.1996). In its review, this Court must “accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Id. Further, we must be mindful that “the level of proof a plaintiff is required to present in order to establish a prima facie ease of discrimination is low.” de la Cruz v. New York City Human Resources Admin. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 82 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir.1996).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judge JON O. NEWMAN dissents with a separate opinion.
PARKER, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiff-Appellant Marva Brown appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, Judge), entered September 22, 1997, dismissing Brown’s claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a, N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. and N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq., that Defendant-Appellee Coach Stores, Inc. (“Coach”) discriminated against her on the basis of her race. The district court held that Brown’s second amended complaint failed to state a claim because Brown neglected to allege that she applied for, was qualified for and was rejected from, any specific position or positions at Coach. The court also held that Brown failed to adequately allege a claim of disparate impact.
I. BACKGROUND
Marva Brown is an African-American who has worked as a receptionist in Coach’s Human Resource Department at its headquarters in Manhattan since 1988. In December 1996, Brown, through her attorney, filed a Notice of Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In this charge, she claimed that despite repeated requests to be promoted, Coach had refused to promote her and had instead promoted dozens of non-minority employees and “scarcely any” minorities. She also claimed that one of her co-employees at Coach told her that she looked “black like a real nigger” when she returned from a vacation, a comment for which the employee was not sanctioned, and that she was routinely excluded from business meetings and holiday parties held by her department.
In January 1997, Brown filed a complaint in the district court asserting claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. and N.Y. City Admin. Code § 8-107 et seq. Brown filed an amended complaint dated March 7, 1997, adding claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1981a, 1983. Coach moved to dismiss the amended complaint asserting that it did not state a claim because it failed to allege the dates upon which Brown sought a promotion and the position or positions to which she applied. Coach also argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the ADEA claim because it was not raised in Brown’s EEOC charge.
At a hearing on the motion to dismiss in April 1997, the district court agreed with Coach that Brown had to specify a particular time when she sought a promotion to a specific position or positions and was denied in favor of a nonminority or she would fail to state a prima facie case of discrimination. The district court dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice while offering to allow Brown a month to engage in discovery prior to filing her second amended complaint. Brown’s counsel agreed, however, that he could cure the amended complaint’s deficiencies without further discovery and declined the district court’s offer.
Brown filed the second amended complaint dated May 12, 1997, removing the ADEA claim and the claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 but reasserting the remainder of the previous claims. She asserted that “[e]om-mencing in approximately 1990 and continuing at least through August of 1996, [she] has repeatedly requested a promotion.” Specifically, Brown contended that in August 1995 and August 1996 she requested a promotion during her annual evaluation. According to the second amended complaint, during her employment with Coach she was qualified for promotion to “[d]ozens to hundreds” of open positions including “secretary,” “administrative assistant” and “human resources assistant.” Brown asserted that she was told repeatedly by supervisors that she was “too valuable in her current position to promote.”
[709]*709Brown alleged that she was told by her supervisors that Coach “seeks to hire and promote people who have a ‘Coach look’ — the examples to whom her supervisors referred were young non-minority persons.” Further, Brown alleged that one of her supervisors made several discriminatory remarks about minorities. The second amended complaint also made allegations which were not asserted in the original EEOC charge regarding Coach’s employment practices toward minorities as a whole. Brown points to EEOC statistics which show a low proportion of minority employees in management positions at Coach. Thus, Brown claims that Coach’s hiring and promotion practices have a discriminatory impact on minorities.
Coach moved to dismiss the second amended complaint again arguing that Brown had failed to state a prima facie ease because she failed to “indicate whether there was any open position at Coach for which she was qualified, she applied and was rejected, and which was given to another person.”
The district court granted Coach’s motion to dismiss, dismissing the second amended complaint with prejudice. The court found that Brown had failed to state a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), because “[njowhere ... does the Amended Complaint allege any specific position for which plaintiff applied, was qualified, and was rejected.” The court noted that in the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Brown’s counsel conceded that “ ‘[tjhere is no allegation that Ms. Brown asked at a specific time for a specific job.’ ”
As to Brown’s disparate impact claim, the court found her statistics “very general,” noting that they failed to take account of the various types of positions at Coach, the qualifications required for promotion and the relevant minority composition of the applicant pool. The court noted that even if the statistics were sufficient to establish disparities in the relevant workpools, Brown’s case would fail because she has not alleged a causal relationship between a Coach policy or practice and the underrepresentation of minorities in certain jobs.
Brown filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.
II. DISCUSSION
We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of the complaint. See Bernheim v. Litt, 79 F.3d 318, 321 (2d Cir.1996). In its review, this Court must “accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Id. Further, we must be mindful that “the level of proof a plaintiff is required to present in order to establish a prima facie ease of discrimination is low.” de la Cruz v. New York City Human Resources Admin. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 82 F.3d 16, 20 (2d Cir.1996).
Brown argues on appeal that she has adequately pleaded four claims of discrimination: 1) failure to promote, 2) pattern and practice discrimination, 3) disparate impact and 4) hostile environment. We disagree. We hold that Brown’s failure to apply and be rejected for a specific position or positions is fatal to her failure to promote and pattern and practice claims. Further, we find Brown’s pleadings inadequate to state a disparate impact claim or a hostile environment claim.
A. Failure to Promote Claim
In McDonnell Douglas, the Supreme Court provided a framework for a prima facie claim based on an alleged discriminatory failure to promote as follows1, plaintiff must allege that (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she “applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants”; (3) she was rejected for the position; and (4) the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants having the plaintiffs qualifications. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. However, the McDonnell Douglas Court, in a footnote, acknowledged that “[t]he facts necessarily will vary in Title VII cases, and the specification ... of the prima facie proof required from respondent is not necessarily applicable in every respect [710]*710to differing factual situations.” Id. at 802 n. 13, 93 S.Ct. 1817.
In Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253 n. 6, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981), the Supreme Court clarified that the McDonnell Douglas opinion described an “appropriate model for a prima facie case of racial discrimination” but that the “standard is not inflexible.” The Court noted, however, that in establishing a prima facie case the plaintiff must show that “she applied for an available position for which she was qualified, but was rejected under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089.
We read McDonnell Douglas and Burdine generally to require a plaintiff to allege that she or he applied for a specific position or positions and was rejected therefrom, rather than merely asserting that on several occasions she or he generally requested promotion. This general mandate ensures that, at the very least, the plaintiff employee alleges a particular adverse employment action, an instance of alleged discrimination, by the employer. Moreover, we believe if generally requesting a promotion in an annual review were sufficient to establish a prima facie case, employers would be unfairly burdened in their promotion efforts. Rather than simply considering individuals who have specifically applied for a promotion, an employer would additionally have to keep track of all employees who have generally expressed an interest in promotion and consider each of them for any opening for which they are qualified but did not specifically apply.
We do recognize, however, that the pleading requirements in discrimination eases are very lenient, even de minimis. Thus, the general rule of McDonnell Douglas and Burdine is subject to modification where the facts of a particular case make an allegation of a specific application a quixotic requirement. Brown asserts that the general rule does not hold here for two reasons: 1) the jobs to which Brown sought promotion (i.e. those not requiring a college degree) were infrequently posted; and 2) the aura of discrimination at Coach so discouraged Brown that she ceased making application to specific positions after 1995. We are not persuaded that either allegation exempts Brown from the general pleading requirements.
As to the posting practices of Coach, Brown’s complaint impliedly concedes that some positions not requiring a college degree were posted, albeit infrequently. There is no allegation in the complaint that Brown was not aware of positions, posted or not, as they came open. Brown does not charge, for example, that Coach refused to accept applications for positions or hand-picked individuals for promotion to a position without considering applicants. In fact, the complaint asserts that “dozens to hundreds” of positions were “open” for which she was qualified. Thus, we see no reason that the posting practices as alleged should exempt Brown from having to avow that she made some specific effort to apply for a particular position or positions.2
[711]*711B. Pattern and Practice Claim
As noted above, Brown contends that she should be exempted from the general pleading requirement that she assert she applied and was rejected for a specific position or positions because the pattern and practice of discrimination at Coach dissuaded her from applying. She relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977), as the basis for this contention.
In Teamsters, the Supreme Court held that where a group of plaintiffs had proven a history of systematic discrimination by the defendant employer, “the company’s assertion that a person who has not actually applied for a job can never be awarded seniority relief cannot prevail.” Id. at 365, 97 S.Ct. 1843. The Court went on to hold that such an application is not required when it would simply constitute a “futile gesture” or a “vain gesture in light of employer discrimination.” Id. at 366, 97 S.Ct. 1843. The Court then noted that such a plaintiff carries the “not always easy burden” of showing that he or she would have applied for a job had it not been for the company’s deeply entrenched discriminatory practices. Id. at 368, 97 S.Ct. 1843.
The initial problem with Brown’s reliance on Teamsters is that the leniency afforded individual plaintiffs in that case hinged on an initial finding of a history of discrimination by the employer to the class of plaintiffs. As one employment law treatise notes,
Some of the Supreme Court’s language [in Teamsters ] is very general and could be mistakenly read to mean that the words “applied for” in the McDonnell Douglas test do not mean what they say. Taking the decision as a whole, however, it is evident that the Court in Teamsters was not laying down rules for private, non-class actions. Of the cases cited by the Court for the proposition that non-applicants can recover, none were private non-class actions.
In the author’s view, this distinction is a sound one. In an individual disparate treatment suit, the fact of application, along with the other elements of a prima facie ease, is used to prove both the existence of discrimination and the consequential injury to the plaintiff. In the remedial stage of a pattern or practice suit, widespread discrimination is taken as a given, and the individual plaintiff is charged merely with the responsibility of showing that he of [sic] she is a member of the affected group____ It would be unthinkable to routinely permit non-applicant plaintiffs in individual suits to recover back pay, retroactive seniority, and the like based on what amounts to mere speculation that they would have been rejected for discriminatory reasons had they applied.
1 Lex K. Larson, Employment Discrimination § 8.02[2], at 8-30-8-31 (2d Ed.1997) (footnote omitted).
However, even if we assume that Brown has adequately pleaded a claim of pattern and practice discrimination by Coach, which is questionable, the Teamsters decision does not salvage her complaint. Accepting as true Brown’s bare allegation that she ceased applying after 1995 for specific positions because such application would have been futile, Brown has failed to allege the specific positions to which she would have applied had the alleged discriminatory practices not existed.3 The fact that she felt comfortable on at least two occasions gener[712]*712ally requesting to be promoted belies the notion that a specific application would have been in vain. Further, Brown has failed to even allege 'that she would have applied for specific positions had the alleged discriminatory practices not existed.
We find, therefore, no reason to relieve Brown of meeting the de minimis pleading requirement in a Title VII race discrimination case of delineating a position or positions to which she applied and was rejected.4
C. Disparate Impact Claim
We next turn to Brown’s disparate impact claim. At the outset, we note that Coach asserts that the Court has no jurisdiction over the claim because Brown failed to state it in her EEOC charge. It is true that we generally have no jurisdiction to hear claims not alleged in the employee’s EEOC charge. The purpose of this exhaustion requirement is “to give the administrative agency the opportunity to investigate, mediate, and take remedial action.” Stewart v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Service, 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir.1985).
However, - claims which are “reasonably related” to the EEOC charge may be brought in a subsequent federal court action. See Butts v. City of New York Dep’t of Housing Preservation and Dev., 990 F.2d 1397, 1402 (2d Cir.1993). We allow such claims to continue where “the conduct complained of would fall within the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). We find Brown’s disparate impact claim reasonably related to her failure to promote claim as we would expect that the EEOC, in investigating the complaint, would have assessed Coach’s promotion policies and their effect on minority employees. Thus, we consider the merits of the claim.
To establish a prima facie case of disparate impact, a plaintiff must show that a facially neutral employment policy or practice has a significant disparate impact. See Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 430-32, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). Allegations which contend only that there is a bottom line racial imbalance in the work force are insufficient. See Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642, 653, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 733 (1989); see also Lopez v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 930 F.2d 157, 159 (2d Cir.1991). In Lopez, this Court focused on the “causal connection” requirement of Title VII noting that it
recognizes that underrepresentation of blacks might result from any number of factors, and it places an initial burden on the plaintiff to show that the specific factor challenged under the disparate impact model results in the discriminatory impact.
930 F.2d at 160 (citations and quotation omitted).
Brown’s allegations of disparate impact fail because they do not adequately allege a causal connection between any facially neutral policy at Coach and the resultant proportion of minority employees. Brown’s complaint uses general reports of the EEOC to assert that from 1990 to 1995 the overall percentage of minority employees at Coach headquarters dropped from 30% to 11%, while in 1995 the New York City retail trade employed almost 25% minority employees. Further, the complaint contends that Coach did not employ any minority managers in its headquarters location from 1990-1994 and then in 1995 reported three minority managers.
Brown does not connect these general statistics to any Coach policy. Although Brown asserts that Coach’s training and promotion policies deliberately keep minorities from being promoted, those alleged policies seem utterly disconnected from the fact that the overall percentage of minority employees as a whole at Coach dropped between 1990 and [713]*7131995 and is less than the percentage of minorities in the retail industry as a whole. The statistics shed no light on whether there is a disparity between the number of minorities in the higher positions at Coach and in the retail industry’s higher positions which, if significantly different, could support an inference of discriminatory promotion practices at Coach. As such, her statistics are similar to the statistics in Wards Cove which showed a high percentage of minority employees in low-level cannery jobs and a small percentage in non-cannery jobs, which the Supreme Court found insufficient to establish a prima facie case of disparate impact. See Wards Cove, 490 U.S. at 651-52, 109 S.Ct. 2115.
Brown’s claim is also undercut by her acknowledgment that Coach hired (or promoted) three minorities for manager positions in 1995 (although two were allegedly subsequently let go). Brown fails to connect the statistics with any other policy. As a result, her complaint fails to adequately allege a disparate impact claim.
D. Hostile Work Environment Claim
On appeal, Brown also argues that she was subjected to a hostile work environment at Coach. This claim was apparently not considered by the district court as it is not plainly articulated in Brown’s complaint. The complaint does contend that one Coach supervisor made, on occasion, racist remarks and one such comment was directed at Brown. Again, we find the allegations in the complaint lacking. Although the alleged comments are despicable and offensive, they fail to constitute discriminatory behavior that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to cause a hostile environment. See Harris v. Forklift Sys. Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21-23, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993); Lopez v. S.B. Thomas, Inc., 831 F.2d 1184, 1189 (2d Cir.1987). Brown also failed to allege that the remarks unreasonably interfered with her job performance. See Harris, 510 U.S. at 21, 114 S.Ct. 367; Kotcher v. Rosa and Sullivan Appliance Ctr., Inc., 957 F.2d 59, 62-63 (2d Cir.1992). As a result, she has not alleged a prima facie case of hostile work environment.
III. CONCLUSION
We hereby AFFIRM the decision of the district court dismissing Brown’s complaint for failure to state a claim.