Davis v. Carty

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 13, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-06674
StatusUnknown

This text of Davis v. Carty (Davis v. Carty) 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
Davis v. Carty, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SHIANNE C. DAVIS, Plaintiff, -against- BEATRICE CARTY; KIM WHITFIELD; 24-CV-6674 (LTS) JAMES BLACK; EVELYN CLARKE; SHARI PEELE; ANALI FERNANDEZ; ORDER TO AMEND KAREN HARGROVE; KEITH LASNEBURG; HEIDEE BURNS; AWILDA GOMEZ; MS. TORREZ; LOUIS DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Shianne Davis proceeds pro se. She alleges that her former employer, the United States Postal Service (USPS), discriminated against her on the basis of her sex, religion, disability, and being a “single parent,” in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Plaintiff sues Postmaster General Lois DeJoy, and eleven of her former coworkers. By order dated September 10, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 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 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In

reviewing the complaint, the Court must accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Id. 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. Id. (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. at 679. BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the complaint.1 Plaintiff worked for the USPS in three different locations and had problems at each location. From December 2018 through June 2022, Plaintiff worked at the “FDR Parcel Post” on Third Avenue in Manhattan. She makes the following allegations about that position:

1. Management repeatedly threaten to fire me 2. Job position used as pond against me 3. Unfairly overworked 4.Strenuous Labor caused health complications 5. Verbally abused 6. Emotional Distress 7. Mental Anguish 8. Harassment 9. Demeaned my appearance and sexual preference as bisexual.

(ECF 1 at 7.) Thereafter, from July to October 2022, and again from January 2023 to January 2024, Plaintiff worked at the USPS “Morgan P & DC” on Ninth Avenue. Plaintiff alleges that the following took place at this location: 1. Fraudulent misrepresentation 2. Negligent misrepresentation 3. Intentionally falsified documents to force me to sign 4. Caused trauma induced disorders (anxiety and depression) 5. Harassment 6. Denied my access to building to report for scheduled shift by deactivating my badge 7. Emotional Distress 8. Mental Anguish. (Id. at 7-8.) Plaintiff worked at the Cathedral Post Office on 104th Street in Manhattan from November 2022 to January 2023. She alleges that the following took place: 1. Antagonized for my religion 2. Intentionally humiliate me in front coworkers 3. Forced to work in hostile work environment 4. Bias Treatment 5. Physically aggressive 6. Emotional distress 7. Mental anguish 8. Allowed coworkers to verbally attack me. (Id. at 8.)

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original unless noted otherwise. Plaintiff indicates that she filed discrimination charges on multiple dates: October 2022, November 2022, December 2022, and February 2023. She states that the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a notice of right to sue on May 30, 2024, which she received on June 6, 2024. She filed this complaint on August 23, 2024.2

Plaintiff contends that she was discriminated against her on the basis of her sex (female and bisexual), Christian religion, disability (anxiety and depression), and being a “single parent.” She invokes the ADA, Title VII, and New York State and City Human Rights Laws as the basis for her claims. Plaintiff sues Postmaster General Lois DeJoy, and eleven of her former coworkers. DISCUSSION A. Claims under ADA Plaintiff invokes the ADA as a basis for disability discrimination claims against the USPS. Federal employees, however, have no remedy under the ADA for disability discrimination. See Rivera v. Heyman, 157 F.3d 101, 103 (2d Cir. 1998) (“As a federal employee, [Plaintiff] has no remedy for employment discrimination under the ADA.”); Sung v. DeJoy, No.

22-CV-07682 (HG) (LB), 2024 WL 4107212, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2024) (explaining that the ADA’s definition of “employer,” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(B)(i), does not reach the federal government) (citation omitted). Plaintiff’s claims under the ADA must therefore be dismissed. Instead, claims of disability discrimination against a federal employer can be brought under the Rehabilitation Act. See Carter v. Porter, No. 06-CV-3854, 2007 WL 879417, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 22, 2007) (“[A current or former] federal employee . . . may seek relief for . . .

2 The exhibits to the complaint indicate that the discrimination charge was dismissed on the ground that she had previously raised the same claims and been issued a Notice of Right to Sue, but she did not file a complaint.

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)
Brown v. General Services Administration
425 U.S. 820 (Supreme Court, 1976)
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)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Mathirampuzha v. Potter
371 F. Supp. 2d 159 (D. Connecticut, 2005)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Natofsky v. City Of New York
921 F.3d 337 (Second Circuit, 2019)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Davis v. Carty, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-carty-nysd-2025.