Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D.N.Y.: Hiring discrimination claims against New York Fed dismissed, (Jun 8, 2026)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

The applicant failed to allege facts demonstrating his qualifications for the positions for which he was not hired.

A job applicant brought suit against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York after applying for dozens of positions between 2021 and 2024 without receiving a single interview or job offer. The applicant alleged that the Fed’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives unlawfully discriminated against him based on his race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and disability status. A federal district court in New York dismissed his claims, holding that the applicant failed to allege facts demonstrating his qualifications for the positions at issue. The court also rejected the applicant’s “hostile hiring environment” theory, noting that federal law recognizes hostile work environment claims only where an employment relationship exists (Perelman v. Federal Reserve District Bank of New York, No. 1:25-cv-02125 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2026)).

The applicant in this case identifies as a white, Jewish, gay male with a disability. According to the applicant, he possesses extensive educational credentials, professional certifications, and more than a decade of experience in finance, technology, consulting, portfolio management, and investment strategy.

Dozens of applications. Believing himself highly qualified, he applied for dozens of positions with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York between 2021 and 2024. Despite receiving no interviews and no job offers, he maintained that he met or exceeded the minimum qualifications for every position.

DEI. According to the applicant, the Fed’s hiring practices relied heavily on DEI initiatives that prioritized underrepresented racial, gender, and veteran-status categories. He alleged that these initiatives disadvantaged individuals such as himself who did not fit within the organization’s preferred diversity profile. He further asserted that the lack of interviews, coupled with the absence of specific explanations for the hiring decisions, were evidence of the Fed’s discriminatory motives in the selection process.

Lawsuit. After failing to secure an interview or a job offer, the applicant asserted claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that the Fed’s hiring decisions caused substantial professional and personal harm, including emotional distress, insomnia, diminished self-worth, and delays in pursuing personal life goals and asserted claims for failure-to-hire, and a hostile work environment, which he characterized as a “hostile hiring environment,” and disparate impact and treatment. The Fed filed a motion to dismiss the claims.

Conclusory statements. First, the court considered the applicant’s failure-to-hire claim under the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework and concluded that he had failed to allege facts demonstrating his qualification for the positions at issue.

Although the applicant devoted extensive portions of his complaint to describing his credentials and experience, he did not provide sufficient factual allegations regarding the actual duties, responsibilities, or qualifications required for the dozens of positions he sought. Instead, he merely listed job titles and asserted that he met or exceeded the qualifications. The court held that such conclusory statements required it to speculate regarding his suitability for the positions and therefore could not support a plausible discrimination claim. Because qualification for the positions is a necessary element of failure-to-hire claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act, all of those claims were dismissed.

“Hostile hiring environment.” The court also rejected the applicant’s “hostile hiring environment” theory, noting that federal law recognizes hostile work environment claims only where an employment relationship exists. Because the applicant was never hired by the Fed, he could not establish that he was subjected to discriminatory conditions of employment. The court further dismissed his disparate impact claim because the policies he challenged were alleged to be intentionally discriminatory rather than facially neutral, a necessary component of a disparate impact theory. Any disparate treatment claim likewise failed because it depended upon the same insufficient allegations underlying the failure-to-hire claims.

Having dismissed all federal causes of action, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims and granted the Fed’s motion to dismiss.

The case is No. 1:25-cv-02125 (JLR).

Judge: Rochon, J.

Attorneys: Mark A. Perelman, pro se. Jennifer Lau, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for Federal Reserve District Bank of New York.

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination ReligiousDiscrimination StateLawClaims NewYorkNews