Henriquez-Ford v. Council of School Supervisors Administrators et al

Filing 66

OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint are GRANTED, and the case is dismissed. Any further amended complaint, to the extent permitted by this opinion, shall be filed on or before Feb ruary 7, 2016. If no such amended complaint is filed, the dismissal shall be with prejudice and the case shall be closed. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 53, 57, and 58. (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge J. Paul Oetken on 1/7/2016) (cdo) Modified on 1/7/2016 (cdo). Copies mailed by Chambers. Modified on 1/7/2016 (cdo).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
MAEGEN HENRIQUEZ-FORD,
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
COUNCIL OF SCHOOL SUPERVISORS
:
AND ADMINISTRATORS, et al.,
:
Defendants. :
:
-------------------------------------------------------------- X

14-CV-2496 (JPO)
OPINION AND ORDER

J. PAUL OETKEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Maegen Henriquez-Ford, proceeding pro se, brought this action alleging that her
former employer, the New York City Department of Education (“the DOE”), and the two labor
unions that represented her during her employment, the Council of School Supervisors and
Administrators (“the CSA”) and the United Federation of Teachers (“the UFT”), discriminated
against her in violation of various federal and state anti-discrimination statutes, as did a
collection of individuals associated with those organizations. Defendants moved to dismiss
Amended Complaint, and this Court granted those motions on June 23, 2015. (Dkt. No. 48.)
In the June 23 Order, the Court granted Henriquez-Ford leave to file a new amended
complaint on two limited issues. Henriquez-Ford filed a Second Amended Complaint on July
23, 2015, which the DOE, CSA, and UFT have each moved to dismiss. (Dkt. Nos. 49, 53, 57,
58.) For the reasons that follow, the motions are granted.
I.

Analysis
A complete description of the factual background appears in the Court’s previous opinion

in this action. (Dkt. No. 48.) In the Second Amended Complaint, Henriquez-Ford limits her

claims to alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) by the Department of Education, UFT, and
CSA. Defendants move to dismiss those claims under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court construes the pro se Second Amended Complaint liberally,
“accepts all allegations in the complaint as true,” and “draw[s] all inferences in the non-moving
party’s favor.” LaFaro v. N.Y. Cardiothoracic Grp., PLLC, 570 F.3d 471, 475 (2d Cir. 2009)
(internal quotation marks omitted); see Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 47475 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
The Court’s June 23 Order dismissing all of Henriquez-Ford’s claims granted leave to
amend on two grounds. First, the Order dismissed Henriquez-Ford’s Title VII and ADEA claims
against DOE and CSA for failing to exhaust them before the EEOC. See Williams v. N.Y.C.
Housing Auth., 458 F.3d 67, 69 (2d Cir. 2006). The dismissal was “without prejudice to renewal
should Henriquez-Ford provide the necessary documentation or support for such exhaustion to
the Court.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 10.) Second, the Order dismissed Henriquez-Ford’s retaliation and
hostile work environment claims for failing to “identify any protected activity or any conduct
that rises to the level of a hostile work environment.” (Id. at 13 n.7.) These claims were also
“dismissed with leave to amend.” (Id.)
The Second Amended Complaint does not rectify either of these pleading deficiencies.
As to the former, Henriquez-Ford merely asserts that “[b]y [her] recollection, [she] did file her
complaint with the EEOC by the deadline.” (Dkt. No. 49 at 4.) Henriquez-Ford produces no
evidence from the EEOC, nor does she allege any detail about the EEOC proceedings, including
whether she specifically alleged that she filed her Title VII claims before the EEOC. This
conclusory allegation, standing alone, is insufficient to satisfy the exhaustion requirement. See

2

Bey v. Welsbach Elec. Corp., No. 01–CV-2667, 2001 WL 863419, at * 3 & n.3 (S.D.N.Y. July
30, 2001).
As to the latter, the Second Amended Complaint still lacks factual allegations that state a
claim to relief for retaliation or a hostile work environment. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (explaining that, to survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must plead
“enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”). To plead retaliation, a
complaint must allege that a plaintiff “engaged in protected activity” that was causally connected
to the retaliation. See Kelly v. Howard I. Shapiro & Assoc. Consulting Engineers, P.C., 716 F.3d
10, 14 (2d Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted) (describing the elements of a retaliation
claim); see, e.g., Giscombe v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 39 F. Supp. 3d 396, 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2014)
(defining “protected activities”). The Second Amended Complaint contains no allegation that
Henriquez-Ford engaged in protected activity. To plead a hostile work environment claim, a
complaint must allege that “a workplace is so severely permeated with discriminatory
intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that the terms and conditions of her employment were thereby
altered.” Desardouin v. City of Rochester, 708 F.3d 102, 105 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Alfano v.
Costello, 294 F.3d 365, 373-74 (2d Cir. 2002)). To the extent the Second Amended Complaint
alleges any discriminatory activity in Henriquez-Ford’s workplace, it falls far short of a plausible
hostile work environment claim.
Finally, although the June 23 Order granted leave to amend on only limited grounds, the
letter attached to the Second Amended Complaint contains new arguments and allegations in
reaction to the June 23 Order. These additional statements do not disturb the Court’s
conclusions. For example, the Second Amended Complaint’s additional allegations in support of
Henriquez-Ford’s ADA claims are entirely conclusory. A portion of the Second Amended

3

Complaint could be construed as a request for equitable tolling of statutory timing deadlines,
which barred some of her claims. Bare allegations that Henriquez-Ford’s delay was caused by
the unions “dragg[ing] out the administrative process” and the Defendants’ “decepti[ons]” (Dkt.
No. 4), however, are too vague and conclusory to justify such tolling. See, e.g., Richards v. N.
Shore Long Island, No. 10 Civ. 4544 (LDW), 2011 WL 6102055, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2011).
II.

Leave to Amend
In general, “where dismissal is based on a pro se plaintiff’s failure to comply with

pleading conventions, a district court should not dismiss without granting leave to amend at least
once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be
stated.” Crisci-Balestra v. Civil Serv. Employees Ass’n, Inc., 2008 WL 413812, at *6 (E.D.N.Y.
Feb. 13, 2008) (quoting Shelton v. Trs. of Columbia Univ., 236 F. App’x 648, 649 (2d Cir. 2007)
(summary order)) (internal quotations marks and alterations omitted). In this case, HenriquezFord has already received one post-dismissal opportunity to amend. A liberal reading of the
complaint suggests that Henriquez-Ford may be able to provide better evidence that she
exhausted her Title VII claims before the EEOC, but not that she can state a claim for retaliation
or hostile work environment. Accordingly, the Court grants Henriquez-Ford a final opportunity
to amend the complaint, limited solely to her Title VII claim against DOE and CSA, provided
that she does so by February 7, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 48 at 8-9.)
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint are

GRANTED, and the case is dismissed. Any further amended complaint, to the extent permitted
by this opinion, shall be filed on or before February 7, 2016. If no such amended complaint is
filed, the dismissal shall be with prejudice and the case shall be closed.

4

The Clerk of Court is directed to close the motions at Docket Numbers 53, 57, and 58.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2016
New York, New York
____________________________________
J. PAUL OETKEN
United States District Judge
COPY MAILED TO PRO SE PARTY

5