Asuncion v. Bard College

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 21, 2020
Docket7:20-cv-04061
StatusUnknown

This text of Asuncion v. Bard College (Asuncion v. Bard College) 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
Asuncion v. Bard College, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Opinion

ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOC #: _ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DATE FILED: 1 }2» □ □□□□ JOHN A. ASUNCION,

Plaintiff, -against- 20-CV-4061 (NSR) COLLEEN MURPHY ALEXANDER; ORDER TO AMEND KIMBERLY ALEXANDER; JIM BRUDVIG, Defendants. ,

NELSON S. ROMAN, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, appearing pro se, brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title VII’) and the New York State Human Right Law, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him because of his sex. By order dated June 1, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed without prepayment of fees, that is, in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty days of the date of this order. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Court must dismiss an in forma pauperis 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. 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 Lihemlly; 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. BACKGROUND The complaint contains the following allegations. While Plaintiff was working at Bard College, another employee sexually harassed him and created a hostile work environment. When Plaintiff complained, no action was taken, and he was later fired in retaliation for complaining. Named as Defendants are three Bard College administrators, Colleen Murphy Alexander, Kimberly Alexander, and Jim Brudvig. Plaintiff named Bard College as a respondent in the complaint he filed with the New York State Human Rights Commission, but he does not name Bard College as a defendant in this complaint. Plaintiff does not attach a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to his complaint, but he asserts

that he received one on February 28, 2020. DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed this complaint under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law, and names individual defendants. But individuals may not be held liable under the federal employment anti-discrimination statutes, including Title VII.1 See Tomka v. Seiler Corp., 66

1 Claims under city and state human rights laws may be asserted against individuals. See Feingold v. New York, 336 F.3d 138, 158-59 (2d Cir. 2004) (holding that individuals are subject to liability under city and state human rights laws). To assert a claim against individual defendants under city or state human rights laws, “a plaintiff must either show direct, personal involvement in discriminatory conduct, or that the defendant ‘aided and abetted’ the F.3d 1295, 1317 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that “an employer’s agent may not be held individually liable under Title VII”), abrogated on other grounds by Burlington Ind. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998)). Plaintiff filed this complaint under Title VII, but he does not name his former employer,

Bard College, as a defendant. Should Plaintiff wish to proceed under Title VII, he must file an amended complaint naming Bard College as a defendant. Plaintiff should attach a copy of the Notice of Right to Sue that he received from the EEOC to his amended complaint. A district court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims when it “has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Generally, “when the federal-law claims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early stages and only state-law claims remain, the federal court should decline the exercise of jurisdiction.” Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 350 n.7 (1988)). If Plaintiff does not intend to proceed under Title VII, the Court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims against the individual defendants.

In light of the current global health crisis, parties proceeding pro se are encouraged to submit all filings by email to Temporary_Pro_Se_Filing@nysd.uscourts.gov. Pro se parties also are encouraged to consent to receive all court documents electronically. A consent to electronic service form is available on the Court’s website. Pro se parties who are unable to use email may submit documents by regular mail or in person at the drop box located at the U.S. Courthouses in Manhattan (500 Pearl Street) and White Plains (300 Quarropas Street). For more information,

discrimination or retaliation at issue.” Zambrano-Lamhaouhi v. N.Y. City Bd. of Educ., 866 F. Supp. 2d 147, 162-63 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (citing Feingold, 366 F.3d at 157-59). including instructions on this new email service for pro se parties, please visit the Court’s website at nysd.uscourts. gov. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint, either to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit or by email, within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 20-CV-4061 (NSR). An Amended Complaint for Employment Discrimination form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and he cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962). SO ORDERED.

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)
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth
524 U.S. 742 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Terry v. Ashcroft
336 F.3d 128 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Zambrano-Lamhaouhi v. New York City Board of Education
866 F. Supp. 2d 147 (E.D. New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Asuncion v. Bard College, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asuncion-v-bard-college-nysd-2020.