Bell v. New York City Department of Education

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-10048
StatusUnknown

This text of Bell v. New York City Department of Education (Bell v. New York City Department of Education) 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
Bell v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CHRISTOPHER BELL, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-10048 (LTS) NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ORDER TO AMEND EDUCATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, Defendant. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Christopher Bell, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that his employer, the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), discriminated against him on the basis of his race, in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. By order dated November 16, 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 a second amended complaint within 60 days of the date of this order.1 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

1 Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 15, 2023, which is the operative pleading. (ECF 4.) 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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, an Administrative Assistant at Community Educational Council (“CEC”) 6, a DOE entity, brings this action against the DOE using a court-issued employment discrimination complaint form. In response to the question asking him to specify his causes of action, he checks the boxes on the form to assert claims under (1) Title VII, alleging discrimination based on race,

(2) Section 1981, indicating that he is a Black American, and (3) the New York State and City anti-discrimination statutes. In response to the question asking the nature of the adverse action taken by the DOE, Plaintiff checks the boxes indicating that the DOE did not hire him, retaliated against him, harassed him and/or created a hostile work environment, and states that “threatened [him] with termination and stalking by board member.”2 (ECF 4, at 5.) In the fact section of the amended complaint, Plaintiff states, “I was discriminated based on my race and endured harsh mistreatment through harassment. After I complained of unfair

2 The Court quotes verbatim from the complaint. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. mistreatment, I was retaliated by Defendant. The [illegible] led me to resign my position after I received threatening email of termination.” (Id.) Plaintiff refers the Court to attachments to his amended complaint – 138 pages of emails, letters, and visitor log sheets – for further support of his claims. Although Plaintiff does not describe any of the attachments in the fact section of his amended complaint, or explain how the

attachments support his claim of race discrimination, some of the emails suggest that (1) Plaintiff and two CEC board members had disagreements regarding Plaintiff’s responsibilities, and Plaintiff filed a complaint against one of the board members, alleging harassment; (2) Plaintiff did not receive his work email for one month from the start of his employment; (3) a direct supervisor retaliated against him for unspecified reasons; (4) Plaintiff and his supervisors disagreed about the manner in which supplies were purchased by Plaintiff; (5) Plaintiff accused the Vice President of CEC 6 of misusing school supplies; (6) Plaintiff requested whistleblower status and a transfer to another department; and (7) Plaintiff filed a complaint with the DOE’s Office of Special Investigation regarding the alleged misuse of school supplies. On December 9,

2022, Plaintiff resigned from his position, which he had commenced three years earlier, in December 2019. DISCUSSION A. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court need not accept, however, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (citing 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. The amended complaint does not comply with Rule 8 because it does not present facts

suggesting that Plaintiff is entitled to relief from the Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that the DOE discriminated against him because of his race, but he does not provide concrete examples of conduct that he contends constitute racial discrimination. Moreover, none of the attachments suggests that his employer ever considered Plaintiff’s race during any of the alleged workplace disputes. Because these allegations do not state claims upon which relief can be granted under Title VII or Section 1981, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint as set forth below. 1. Title VII 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.” 42 U.S.C.

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)
Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald
546 U.S. 470 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Ruiz v. County of Rockland
609 F.3d 486 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
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)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Bell v. New York City Department of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bell-v-new-york-city-department-of-education-nysd-2024.