Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided March 29, 2024·No. 1:24-cv-02020·Unknown

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: Natasha Itwaru, DATE FILED: 03/29/2024 Plaintiff, 1:24-cv-02020 (JHR) (SDA) ~against- ORDER TO AMEND New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, Anita Richichi, Barbara Glove-Cox, Monica Pollack, Althea Jackson and Bella Morrow, Defendants.

STEWART D. AARON, United States Magistrate Judge: Plaintiff Natasha Itwaru, who is proceeding pro se, commenced this action on March 17, 2024 (Compl., ECF No. 1) and thereafter paid the applicable filing fees. Plaintiff asserts claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) against Plaintiffs Defendants New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (“DOHMH”) and DOHMH employees Anita Richici, Barbara Glover-Cox, Monica Pollack, Althea Jackson and Bella Morrow (collectively, the “Defendants”). Because Plaintiff names as Defendants individuals who work for a New York City municipality, the Court construes the Complaint as asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 The Court also construes the Complaint as

* Section 1981 “does not provide a separate private right of action against state actors.” Duplan v. City of New York, 888 F.3d 612, 621 (2d Cir. 2018). Additionally, because the Complaint could be construed as an attempt to assert claims against the NYCDOHMIH, itself, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Court notes that Plaintiff may amend her Complaint to add the City of New York as a Defendant. See Ann v. Wiviott, No. 21-CV-09210 (LTS), 2021 WL 5450155, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2021) (dismissing § 1983 claim against NYCDOHMH since “an agency of the City of New York, such as [Health & Mental Hygiene], is not an entity that can be sued[]” under § 1983); see also N.Y.C. Charter ch. 17, § 396 (“[A]ll actions and

asserting state-law claims against both DOHMH and the individual defendants, under the New York State (“NYSHRL”) and New York City Human Rights Laws (“NYCHRL”). See Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138, 158 n.19 (2d Cir. 2004) (although Title VII and the ADA do not provide for

individual liability, an individual who participates in discriminatory conduct may be held liable under the NYSHRL and NYCHRL). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this Order. STANDARD OF REVIEW District Courts have the authority to dismiss a complaint, even when the plaintiff has

paid the filing fee, if it determines that the action is frivolous, see Fitzgerald v. First E. Seventh Tenants Corp., 221 F.3d 362, 363-64 (2d Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (citing Pillay v. INS, 45 F.3d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir. 1995) (per curiam) (holding that Court of Appeals has inherent authority to dismiss frivolous appeal)), or that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583 (1999). The Court also may dismiss an action for failure to state a claim, “so long as the plaintiff is given notice and an opportunity to be heard.” Wachtler

v. County of Herkimer, 35 F.3d 77, 82 (2d Cir. 1994) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court is obliged, however, to construe pro se pleadings liberally, see 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).

proceedings for the recovery of penalties for the violation of any law shall be brought in the name of the city of New York and not in that of any agency, except where otherwise provided by law.”). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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. See 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. See id. BACKGROUND The following facts are drawn from the Complaint. Plaintiff appears to allege that her employer, DOHMH, discriminated against her based on her race, color, national origin and disability because she (1) is from Guyana and “Mix Race-West Indian,” and (2) suffers from chronic pain, depression, anxiety, asthma, hypertension and allergies. (Compl. at 4-5.) She

asserts that Defendants did not promote her or accommodate her disability, harassed her, treated her differently from similarly situated employees and retaliated against her. (Id. at 5.) The sole factual allegation that appears to support Plaintiff’s claims concerns her applying for a position within DOHMH as a current DOHMH employee. She alleges that on September 24, 2021, she applied for the position of Bronx Bureau Director, and DOHMH did not hire her, even though she is “the only high rank[ing] employee of Guyanese/West Indian

descent in the Bureau of Childcare.” (Compl. at 5.) In the fact section of the Complaint, Plaintiff refers the Court to an attachment for additional information; however it appears that but Plaintiff failed to attach the document. (Id.) In the relief section of the Complaint, Plaintiff states that she seeks a promotion,

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

Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
401 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court, 1971)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Wachtler v. County Of Herkimer
35 F.3d 77 (Second Circuit, 1994)
Feingold v. New York
366 F.3d 138 (Second Circuit, 2004)
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)
Davis v. New York City Department of Education
804 F.3d 231 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Duplan v. City of New York
888 F.3d 612 (Second Circuit, 2018)
Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc.
975 F.3d 202 (Second Circuit, 2020)