Cortijo v. 1711 Davidson Ave HDFC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 3, 2019
Docket1:19-cv-03047
StatusUnknown

This text of Cortijo v. 1711 Davidson Ave HDFC (Cortijo v. 1711 Davidson Ave HDFC) 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
Cortijo v. 1711 Davidson Ave HDFC, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK FELIX CORTIJO, Plaintiff, 19-CV-3047 (CM) -against- ORDERTO AMEND 1711 DAVIDSON AVE HDFC,et al., Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro seemployment discrimination action underthe Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701-796; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297; andthe New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. By order datedApril 12, 2019,the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed 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 portion thereof, 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.SeeFed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). While the law mandates dismissal on any of these grounds, the Court is obliged to construe pro sepleadings 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). BACKGROUND Plaintiff uses the Court’s “Employment Discrimination” complaint form to raise his

discrimination claims and checks off the boxes next to the ADEA and the Rehabilitation Act as the statutes under which he brings this lawsuit. He does not check the box next to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, but he does write “black” next to “My race is.” (Compl. at 4.) The following facts are taken from the complaint, which is not a model of clarity: Defendant Vanessa Hatchet, the manager at Defendant 1711 Davidson Avenue HDFC [Housing Development Fund Corporation], did not hire Plaintiff as a superintendent, possibly because he was not in a union. Plaintiff also asserts: “monitor for personal reason.” (Compl. at 5.) He claims that Defendants retaliated against him but does not detail any retaliatory acts. Plaintiff states that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Plaintiff requests that the Court order Defendants to reasonably accommodate his disability, which hedoes not identify. He also seeks “$18,000 for real estate information provided to her for continuance of managing 1711 Davidson Ave HDFC.” (Id.at 6.) DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the ADEA The ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer to“discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. §623(a). The ADEA protects workers who are at least 40 years old from discrimination because of age. Feldman v. Nassau Cnty., 434 F.3d 177, 180 (2d Cir. 2006); see29 U.S.C. § 631(a) (“The prohibitions in this chapter shall be limited to individuals who are at least 40 years of age.”). A plaintiff asserting a claim for age discrimination in violation of the ADEA must allege “that age was the ‘but for’ cause of the employer’s adverse actions.” Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs.,

Inc., 557 U.S. 167, 177 (2009) (holding that in contrast to Title VII, “the ADEA does not provide that a plaintiff may establish discrimination by showing that age was simply a motivating factor.”); Barone v. S & N Auerbach Mgmt., Inc., 645 F. App’x 13, 14 (2d Cir. 2016)(“Under the ADEA, a plaintiff must allege that age was the ‘but for’ cause –not merely a motivating factor – of the adverse employment action.”). As an initial matter, Plaintiff affirmatively states that he did not exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC. ADEA plaintiffs may file suit in federal court at any time from 60 days after filing the EEOC charge until 90 days after the plaintiff receives notice from the EEOC that the EEOC proceedings are terminated.SeeHodge v. New York Coll. of

Podiatric Med., 157 F.3d 164, 166 (2d Cir. 1998) (relying on 29 U.S.C. § 626(d), (e)). On this basis alone, the complaint fails to state a claim becausePlaintiff states that hedid not exhaust his administrative remedies with the EEOC.See Walters v. Indus. and Commercial Bank of China, Ltd., 651 F.3d 280, 293 (2d Cir. 2011) (“[B]oth the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have long held that courts may dismiss actions on their own motion in a broad range of circumstances where they are not explicitly authorized to do so by statute or rule.”); Akassy v. Hardy, Nos.17-2737, 17-2741, 17-2994, 2018 WL 1612164, at *3 (2d Cir. Apr. 4, 2018) (finding that dismissal can be based on an affirmative defense that was clear on the face of the complaint). Moreover, Plaintiff fails to allege that he is at least forty years old. It is therefore unclear whether he is protected under the ADEA. Plaintiff alsofails to allege facts suggesting that Hatchett did not hire him because of his age. The complaint therefore fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

While the Court is inclined to dismiss this claim, because it is not clear that an amendment would befutile, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to plead facts suggestingthat he has since filed a charge with the EEOC, he is at least forty years old,and that Hatchett did not hire him because of his age. B. Plaintiff fails to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act Plaintiff asserts that Defendants discriminated against him in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. Under the Rehabilitation Act, “no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of . . .his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.. ..”29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

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

Related

Kinneary v. City of New York
601 F.3d 151 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
455 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1982)
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan
536 U.S. 101 (Supreme Court, 2002)
Jones v. R. R. Donnelley & Sons Co.
541 U.S. 369 (Supreme Court, 2004)
Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.
557 U.S. 167 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Laurance A. Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers
192 F.3d 322 (Second Circuit, 1999)
Chin v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
685 F.3d 135 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Walters v. INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA
651 F.3d 280 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Barone v. S & N Auerbach Management, Inc.
645 F. App'x 13 (Second Circuit, 2016)
Hardaway v. Hartford Public Works Department
879 F.3d 486 (Second Circuit, 2018)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Cortijo v. 1711 Davidson Ave HDFC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cortijo-v-1711-davidson-ave-hdfc-nysd-2019.