Adams v. Robert Half International Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedAugust 28, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-05815
StatusUnknown

This text of Adams v. Robert Half International Inc. (Adams v. Robert Half International Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Adams v. Robert Half International Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TOMMY F. ADAMS, Plaintiff, 23-CV-5815 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Tommy F. Adams brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws (“NYSHRL” & “NYCHRL”), alleging that a potential employer discriminated against him based on his race. He sues Network Temps, Inc., d/b/a Network ESC. By order dated August 2, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an IFP complaint, or any portion of the complaint, that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see Livingston v. Adirondack Beverage Co., 141 F.3d 434, 437 (2d Cir. 1998). The Court must also dismiss a complaint when the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction of the claims raised. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally, Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009), and interpret them to raise the “strongest [claims] that they suggest,” Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (emphasis in original). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475 (citation omitted), has its limits – to state a claim, pro se pleadings still must comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, which requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Rule 8 requires a complaint to include enough facts to state a claim for relief “that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible if the plaintiff pleads enough factual detail to allow the Court to draw the inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. In reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). But it does not have to accept as true “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially just legal conclusions. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. After separating legal conclusions from well-pleaded factual allegations, the Court must determine whether those

facts make it plausible – not merely possible – that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, who is a resident of Brooklyn, New York, brings this action, alleging that Defendant discriminated against him on the basis of his race, which he identifies as African American, when it failed to hire him.1 In the facts section of the complaint, Plaintiff alleges:

1 This is one of five actions Plaintiff filed in this court in the past month against potential employers asserting claims of racial discrimination and alleging virtually identical facts. See Adams v. City of New York, Office of Labor Relations, ECF 1:23-CV-6637, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 28, 2023); Adams v. Legendary Marketing, ECF 1:23-CV-6167, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 17, 2023); Adams v. Forum Personnel Inc., ECF 1:23-CV-6170, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 17, 2023); Adams v. Network Temps, Inc., No. 1:23-CV-5817, 1 (S.D.N.Y. filed July 6, 2023). Attached to this complaint is Plaintiff’s “rebuttal for [the] DHR case” against Network Temps, Inc. (Id. at 20.) After distinguishing myself as the greatest high school graduate in U.S. history 44 years ago, and garnering a host of personal and professional awards, I have been denied employment by Robert Half Int’l most of the last four decades. This firm refuses to work with me because I am the first and only Black, male, captain of a white athletic team in world and U.S. history. (ECF 1 ¶ IV.B.) Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“NYSDHR”) and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Attached to the complaint is the NYSDHR determination finding “no probable cause . . . to believe that [Defendant] has engaged or is engaging in the unlawful discriminatory practice complained of.” (Id. at 8-10.) That decision noted Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant is bent on keeping [him] in minimum wage jobs in order to aid and abet miscegenation among white men and pretty black, debutantes. [Plaintiff] believes that if he were homosexual, he would have no trouble finding employment. (Id. at 8) The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on April 20, 2023. (Id. at 11-12.)2 Plaintiff seeks $800,000,000,00 in damages, “to renumerate [him] for five decades of discrimination.” (Id. ¶ VI.) DISCUSSION A. Federal Discrimination Claims Plaintiff brings federal claims for discrimination under Title and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Title VII provides that [i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer … to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 2 Also attached to the complaint is a copy of another person’s resume, two different versions of Plaintiff’s resume, and an email letter addressed to Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, in which Plaintiff claims that he is “[t]he greatest man in the Church’s history [and] is about to sue the archdiocese of New York for racism.” (Id. at 13-19.) 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). This statute prohibits employers from mistreating an individual because of the individual’s protected characteristics, Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2007), or retaliating against an employee who has opposed any practice made unlawful by those statutes, see Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t, 555 U.S. 271, 276 (2009) (holding that conduct is protected when

it “confront[s],” “resist[s],” or “withstand[s]” unlawful actions). Mistreatment at work that occurs for a reason other than an employee’s protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct is not actionable under Title VII. See Chukwuka v. City of New York, 513 F. App’x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill
484 U.S. 343 (Supreme Court, 1988)
Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc.
511 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Chukwuka v. City of New York
513 F. App'x 34 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Patane v. Clark
508 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Brown v. City of Oneonta
221 F.3d 329 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Adams v. Robert Half International Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-robert-half-international-inc-nysd-2023.