Gindi v. Bennett et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff Lisa Gindi, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("the ADEA''), and the Americanswith Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). Along with her complaint, plaintiff files a request to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1915. Plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED solely for the purpose of the instant order. For the reasons stated below, plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, or the instant action shall be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). So Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 1/29/2016. (Gillespie, Saudia)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------){
LISA GINDI,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
l 5-CV-64 7 5 (RRM)

- against MR. THOMAS BENNETT et al.,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------------){
ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Lisa Gindi, proceeding pro se, filed the instant complaint alleging violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. {"Title VII"), the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. ("the ADEA''), and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). Along with her complaint, plaintiff
files a request to proceed informa pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Plaintiffs request to
proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED solely for the purpose of the instant order. For the
reasons stated below, plaintiff is GRANTED leave to file an amended complaint within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Order, or the instant action shall be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is a former employee of the New York City Department of Education. (Compl.
(Doc. No. 1) at 4.) As best as can be ascertained from the complaint, plaintiff was a tenured
teacher from 1993 until sometime in 2013. (Id) Plaintiff alleges that at some point during her
employment she informed her boss that she needed to take five days off of work due to her
contested divorce, that her boss hit her because she would not pass eighteen students who were
failing her class, and that she was fired with no just cause in 2013. (Id)

Plaintiff brings causes of action for failure to hire, termination of employment, failure to
promote, failure to accommodate a disability, unequal terms and conditions of employment, and
retaliation. (Id at 3.) Plaintiff alleges defendants discriminated against her because she is a
white, Jewish female, who is more than forty years of age. (Id.) Regarding her disability,
plaintiff states that she has a lazy eye and suffers from stress due to her divorce. (Id.)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action when it is satisfied that the
action "(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or
(iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). An action is "frivolous" when either: (1) "the factual contentions are clearly
baseless, such as when allegations are the product of delusion or fantasy"; or (2) "the claim is
based on an indisputably meritless legal theory." Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141
F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).

It is axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings
drafted by attorneys. The Court is required to read the plaintiffs pro se complaint liberally and
interpret it as raising the strongest arguments it suggests. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89
(2007); Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9 (1980); Sealed Plaintiff v. Sealed Defendant #1, 537 F.3d
185, 191-93 (2d Cir. 2008).
At the pleadings stage of the proceeding, the Court assumes the truth of "all well-pleaded,
nonconclusory factual allegations" in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621
F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2010). A complaint must plead sufficient facts to "state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the

2

reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plausibility standard does not impose an across-the-board,
heightened fact pleading standard. Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 213 (2d Cir. 2008).
However, the plausibility standard does impose some burden to make factual allegations that
support a claim for relief. As the Iqbal court explained, it "does not require detailed factual
allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
DISCUSSION

I.

The Administrative Claim
Generally, a claimant may bring suit in federal court under the ADEA, Title VII, and the

ADA only after filing a timely complaint with the EEOC. Floyd v. Lord & Taylor, 96 F. App'x
792, 793 (2d Cir. 2004) (upholding dismissal of a complaint where plaintiff failed to submit any
documentation showing that she had filed a complaint with the EEOC, a "prerequisite to
bringing suit in federal court under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA"). To be deemed timely,
the administrative claim must be filed with the EEOC or the state agency within 300 days of the
alleged discriminatory conduct. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(l); Kassner v. 2d

Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229, 237 (2d Cir. 2007). This is true even of prose litigants.
Tanvir v. New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 480 F. App'x 620, 621 (2d Cir. 2012).
However, the failure to file a timely complaint with the EEOC is not necessarily fatal. A
plaintiff can overcome this deficiency by showing that she is entitled to equitable tolling. See

Fowlkes v. lronworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378, 385-86 (2d Cir. 2015) (holding that exhaustion
of administrative remedies is a precondition to bringing a Title VII claim, rather than a
jurisdictional requirement and is subject to waiver, equitable estoppel, and equitable tolling). To

3

warrant equitable tolling, a plaintiff must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances beyond
her control prevented her from filing her administrative claim. Boos v. Runyon, 201F.3d178,
185 (2d Cir. 2000).
Here, plaintiffs complaint fails to demonstrate that she has filed a charge with the EEOC
concerning her allegations of discrimination based on Title VII, age, or disability. Plaintiff
additionally f~ils to offer any basis for waiver, equitable estoppel, or equitable tolling.

II.

Sufficiency of the Pleading
Even if plaintiffs complaint was preceded by a timely-filed administrative complaint, it

fails to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for employment discrimination under Title
VII, the ADA, or the ADEA.

a. Plaintiffs Title VII Claims
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual with respect to
"compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's
race, color, religion, sex or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). To establish a prima
facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class,
(2) she was qualified for the position she held, and (3) she suffered an adverse employment
action (4) under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Brown v. City of

Syracuse, 673 F.3d 141, 150 (2d Cir. 2012); Sethi v. Narod, 12 F. Supp. 3d 505, 522 (E.D.N.Y.
2014).
Here, the factual basis of plaintiffs Title VII complaint is unclear. Her complaint fails to
allege sufficient facts to show that plaintiff suffered discrimination because of her race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin. Thus, plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Title VII.

4

b. Plaintifrs ADEA Claims
The ADEA establishes that it is "unlawful for an employer ... to discharge any
individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,
terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C.

§ 623(a)(l). In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination in violation of the
ADEA, plaintiff must show that: ( 1) she was within the protected age group (more than 40 years
old); (2) she was qualified for her position; (3) she experienced adverse employment action; and
(4) such action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.

Gorzynski v. Jet Blue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d 93, 107 (2d Cir. 2010) (citing Carlton v. Mystic
Transp. Inc., 202 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2000)).
In support of her ADEA age discrimination claim, plaintiff alleges that she is a member
of a protected age group, but does not plead any facts to support an inference that the defendant
discriminated against her because of her age. At a minimum, an ADEA claimant must inform
the Court and the defendant why she believes age discrimination existed. See Dugan v. Martin

Marietta Aerospace, 760 F.2d 397, 399 (2d Cir. 1985) ("While a claim made under the ADEA
need not contain every supporting detail, it must at least inform the court and the defendant
generally of the reasons the plaintiff believes age discrimination has been practiced."); Gal/op-

Laverpool v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers E., No. 14-CV-2879, 2014 WL 3897588, at
*2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 8, 2014).
Plaintiff simply asserts, without further elaboration, that she is more than 40 years of age.
This is insufficient to state a claim under the ADEA.

5

c. Plaintifrs ADA Claims
To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show
that "(l) the defendant is covered by the ADA; (2) plaintiff suffers from or is regarded as
suffering from a disability within the meaning of the ADA; (3) plaintiff was qualified to perform
the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; and (4) plaintiff
suffered an adverse employment action because of [her] disability or perceived disability."

Capobianco v. City ofNew York, 422 F.3d 47, 56 (2d Cir. 2005); Ugactz v. United Parcel Serv.,
Inc., No. 10-CV-1247, 2013 WL 1232355, at *7 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2013).
Here, plaintiff asserts that the nature of her disability is a lazy eye and stress due to her
divorce. Although plaintiff is not required to establish discrimination at the pleading stage, she
must plausibly allege a claim upon which relief can be granted. Vega v. Hempstead Union Free

Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 86-87 (2d Cir. 2015). Even under the most liberal construction, the
complaint provides no facts that could possibly connect any adverse employment action to a
protected status. Thus, plaintiff has failed to state a claim under the ADA. See Ruston v. Town

Bd. ofSkaneateles, 610 F.3d 55, 59 (2d Cir. 2010) ("Under Iqbal, factual allegations must be
sufficient to support necessary legal conclusions," and must "plausibly suggest an entitlement to
relief.").

III.

Individual Liability
Finally, the Court notes that plaintiff names as defendants individuals who appear to be

employed by the New York City Department of Education. Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA
do not permit the imposition of liability on individuals in their individual or representative
capacities. Raspardo v. Carlone, 770 F.3d 97, 113 (2d Cir. 2014) (Title VII); Guerra v. Jones,
421 F. App'x 15, 17 (2d Cir. 2011) (ADEA); Castro v. City ofNew York, 24 F. Supp. 3d 250,

6

259 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (ADA). Plaintiff has failed to name her former employer as a defendant in
this action and she cannot recover from its other employees.

CONCLUSION
In light of plaintiffs prose status, the Court grants her thirty (30) days leave to file an
amended complaint. Plaintiff is directed that if she elects to file an amended complaint she must
name her former employer as a defendant. Should plaintiff have a basis for a claim of
employment discrimination, she should provide facts in support of such claim and demonstrate
that she has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a claim with the EEOC. If plaintiff
failed to file a claim with the EEOC or the New York State Division of Human Rights within the
300 day filing period she must detail any impediment that prevented her from timely filing.
Plaintiff is further directed that any amended complaint must comply with Rule 8(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and it must "plead enough facts to state a claim to reliefthat
is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. The amended complaint must be captioned
as an "Amended Complaint" and bear the same docket number as assigned to this Order.
No summons shall issue at this time and all further proceedings shall be stayed for 30
days or until further order of the Court. If plaintiff fails to amend her complaint within 30 days
of the date that this order is entered on the docket, the Court shall dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and judgment shall enter. If submitted,
the amended complaint will be reviewed for compliance with this order and for sufficiency under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken
in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal.

7

SO ORDERED.

'Ros{ynn 'R. :Mausk.oyf

Dated: Brooklyn, New y ork
January 29, 2016

ROSLYNN R. MAUSKOPF
United States District Judge

8