McClarence v. International Union of Operating Engineers Locla Union 14-1413

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached order, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). McClarence's claims related to his prior conviction are dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court. McClarence is granted leave to file an amended complaint to allege claims related to Title VII discrimination. No summons shall issue at this time, and all further proceedings shall be stayed for thirty days. Failu re to plead sufficient facts in the amended complaint to give rise to a claim will result in dismissal of this action, and if plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty days, judgment shall enter. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § l 9 15(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to send Rickey McClarence,pro se,a copy of this order together with a form complaint for employment discrimination actions, and note the mailing on the docket. Ordered by Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf on 9/5/2017. (Taronji, Robert)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------)( RICKEY McCLARENCE, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 16-CV-6614 (RRM) (LB) Plaintiff, - against INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL UNION 14-1413 , Defendant. -----------------------------------------------------------)( ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF, United States District Judge. Plaintiff Rickey McClarence, proceedingpro se, brings this employment discrimination action against a labor union. (Comp!. (Doc. No. 1).) He attaches the September 27, 2016 letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") notifying him of his right to sue in federal court. (Id) His request to proceed in Jonna pauperis is granted for the purpose of this Order. For the reasons that follow, McClarence's comp laint is dismissed with leave to amend within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Order. BACKGROUND On November 22, 2016, McC larence commenced this action by filing a form complaint for employment discrimination actions and checking the box to initiate an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (CompI. at 3.) 1 He checked the boxes on the form indicating that he was discriminated against on the basis ofrace and co lor, but he did not specify his race or color. (Id at 5.) He also checked the box fo r "disability or perceived disability" and specified " my conviction record." (Id.) He checked the boxes indicating failure to hire and termination of his employment. (Id. at 4.) In the space to describe the facts of hi s case, McClarence states 1 All citations to pages of the complaint refer to the Electronic Case Filing System (" ECF" ) pagination . " [w]hen I completed my sentence from pri son the International U nion of Operating Engineers Local Union 14- 14 13 would not let me continue to work thru the union." (Id. at 5.) He states that he was informed that the exclusion was based on the results of a drug test in April, 2007, "even tho I work thru the union until I went to prison in 2009 without discrim ination until I finished my prison sentence and tryed [sic] to reconnect with the union." (Id.) He alleges that he cannot support his pre-prison lifestyle and meet his child support obligations because he is unable to get hi s union card and renew his work licenses and certificates. (Id. at 6.) STANDARD OF REVIEW A complaint fi led in forma pauperis may be dismissed "at any time" upon determination that the actio n " (i) is frivo lous or malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief m ay be granted, or (iii) seeks m onetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U .S. C. § l 9 15(e)(2)(B). In evaluating whether a pleading states a claim for relief, "a court must accept as true all factual allegations contained in a complaint but need not accept legal conclusions." Halebian v. Berv, 590 F.3d 195, 203 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U .S . 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of acti on, suppo rted by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice ." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Moreover, the " [fjactual allegations must be enough to raise a right to reli ef above the specu lative level," and to nudge a plaintiffs claims "across the line from conceivable to plausible." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007). Pro se complaints, like other pleadings, must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet the plausibility standard. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009). However, " [a] document fi led prose is ' to be liberally construed,' . . . and ' a pro se complaint, however inartfull y pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by 2 lawyers."' Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, I 06 ( 1976)). Thus, a court must read a prose complaint with "special so licitude," Ruotolo v. I. R.S., 28 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir. 1994), and must interpret it to raise the strongest claims it suggests. See Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 , 474-75 (2d Cir. 2006). Where a liberal reading of the pleading "gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated," the court must grant leave to amend it at least once. See Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). DISCUSSION Title VII provides that " [i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice fo r a labor organization to exclude or to expel from its membership, or otherwise to discriminate against, any individual because of his race, color ... or national origin .... " 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2. To state a Title VII wrongful termination or exclusion claim against a labor organization, "a plaintiff must demonstrate that the union I) discriminated against her because of her race, color, religion, sex, or natio nal origin, 2) segregated or limited its membership, or classified its membership or applicants for membership ' in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment oppo1tunities, ' or 3) caused or attempted to cause an employer to discriminate against an individual because of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Daniels v. Health Ins. Plan a/Greater NY, No. 02-CV-6054 (HB), 2007 WL 27115, at *7 (S .D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2007) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c)(l)-(3)). In this case, McClarence' s complaint fai ls to state a claim under Title VII. McClarence has asserted a bare-bones claim that he was discriminated against on the basis ofrace or color, but has not identified himself as a member of a protected class based on race, nor presented any facts indicating that he was discriminated against on the basis of his membership in a protected 3 class. Indeed, the only explanations he provides for why he was terminated or failed to be reinstated to union membership are the result of a drug test and a past criminal conviction. (Compl. at 4-5.) Neither of these factors indicate membership in a suspect class that is protected under federa l anti-discriminati on laws. Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act do not protect against employment discrimination based upon a prior conviction. 2 See McCoy v. People Care Inc., No. I 1-CV-2689 (RA) , 20 13 WL 5313433, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 20, 20 13); Idlisan v. N.YS. Dep't a/Taxation & Fin., No. 12-CV- 1787 (MAD) (CFH), 20 13 WL 2898050, at *4 (N.D.N.Y. June 13, 2013); Tubbs v. NYC. Parks Dep 't (JTP) Parks Opportunity Arsenal W, No. 12-CV-3322 (CBA) (VMS), 2012 WL 4838439, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 10, 2012); see also 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117. Moreover, "courts consistently conclude that an employee's fai lure of a drug test constitutes a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating the employee." Fahey v. City ofN. Y, No . 10-CV-4609 (ILG) (MOO), 2012 WL 413990, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 20 12) (collecting cases). As McClarence has not adequately alleged that he was discriminated against on the basis of hi s membership in a suspect class, the complaint as filed fails to state a claim for relief and must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In light of McClarence ' s prose status, the Court grants leave to file an amended complaint to state any possible claim for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII. With respect to any claim for racial discrimination, McClarence must identify his race and specify any race-based discrimination or classification that he faced. McClarence may submit an amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The new complaint should be 2 New York State Human Rights Law§ 296( 15) and New York Ciry Human Rights Law do provide some protection from employment discrimination on the basis of past criminal convictions. See N. Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-107, et seq.; N.Y. Exec. Law§ 290, et seq. Nothing in this order shall be construed to preclude McClarence from raising these claims in state court. 4 captioned as an "Amended Complaint," and bear the same docket number as this Order. The Amended Complaint shall completely replace the original complaint. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). McClarence's claims related to his prior conviction are dismissed without prejudice to filing in state court. McClarence is granted leave to file an amended complaint to allege claims related to Title VII discrimination. No summons shall issue at this time, and all further proceedings shall be stayed for thirty days. Failure to plead sufficient facts in the amended complaint to give rise to a claim wi ll result in dismissal of this action, and if plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint within thirty days, judgment shall enter. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore informa pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to send Rickey McClarence, prose, a copy of this Order, together with a form complaint for employment discrimination actions, and note the mai ling on the docket. SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York ~~ ~ ,20 17 s/Roslynn R. Mauskopf ROSL YNN R. MAUSKOPF United States District Judge 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?