Jackson v. Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel

E.D. New York

Jackson v. Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel

District Court, E.D. New York·Decided August 22, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-04099·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRYSTAL JACKSON, MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER -against- 19-CV-4099 (AMD) GO) SHERATON NEW YORK TIMES SQUARE HOTEL; PATRICK ATHY, Director of Human Resources; DIANA CIMINO — Human Resources Manager, Defendants. eK ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge: On July 12, 2019, the pro se plaintiff Crystal Jackson brought a complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000¢e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seg. (“ADA”). By Memorandum Decision and Order, I dismissed the complaint and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to allege facts that show that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her race, color, or disability. (ECF No. 4.) The plaintiff's amended complaint contains facts sufficient to plead a claim for discrimination or retaliation under Title VIL. The plaintiff's ADA discrimination claim, however, is still dismissed because the plaintiff has not pled the required elements of a prima facie case under the ADA. The plaintiffs ADA discrimination claim is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). The plaintiffs Title VII claim will proceed. The defendants Patrick Athy and Diana Cimino are dismissed because the remedial provisions of Title VII do not provide for individual liability. See Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2010). The United States Marshals Service is respectfully directed to serve the summonses, complaint, amended

complaint and this order upon the defendant without prepayment of fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the plaintiff. The case is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Orenstein for pretrial supervision. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED. /s/ Ann M. Donnelly

Ann M. Donnelly “ United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 22, 2019

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK CRYSTAL JACKSON, MEMORANDUM Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER -against- 19-CV-4099 (AMD) GO) SHERATON NEW YORK TIMES SQUARE HOTEL; PATRICK ATHY, Director of Human Resources; DIANA CIMINO — Human Resources Manager, Defendants. eK ANN M. DONNELLY, United States District Judge: On July 12, 2019, the pro se plaintiff Crystal Jackson brought a complaint alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000¢e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seg. (“ADA”). By Memorandum Decision and Order, I dismissed the complaint and granted the plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint to allege facts that show that she suffered an adverse employment action because of her race, color, or disability. (ECF No. 4.) The plaintiff's amended complaint contains facts sufficient to plead a claim for discrimination or retaliation under Title VIL. The plaintiff's ADA discrimination claim, however, is still dismissed because the plaintiff has not pled the required elements of a prima facie case under the ADA. The plaintiffs ADA discrimination claim is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B). The plaintiffs Title VII claim will proceed. The defendants Patrick Athy and Diana Cimino are dismissed because the remedial provisions of Title VII do not provide for individual liability. See Spiegel v. Schulmann, 604 F.3d 72, 79 (2d Cir. 2010). The United States Marshals Service is respectfully directed to serve the summonses, complaint, amended

complaint and this order upon the defendant without prepayment of fees. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the plaintiff. The case is respectfully referred to Magistrate Judge Orenstein for pretrial supervision. The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962).

SO ORDERED. /s/ Ann M. Donnelly

Ann M. Donnelly “ United States District Judge Dated: Brooklyn, New York August 22, 2019

Jackson v. Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel, (E.D.N.Y. 2019).

Pincite

Jackson v. Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel (Jackson v. Sheraton New York Times Square Hotel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related