Jeanty v. Blue Rhino

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedOctober 18, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-08326
StatusUnknown

This text of Jeanty v. Blue Rhino (Jeanty v. Blue Rhino) 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
Jeanty v. Blue Rhino, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KERVIN JEANTY, Plaintiff, -against- 21-CV-8326 (LTS) BLUE RHINO; TOD BROWN; JAMES ORDER TO AMEND FERRELL; JOHN DOE (DE JAN); FERRELLGAS, INC., Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297, and the New York City Human Rights Law, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §§ 8-101 to 131. Plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against and retaliated against in employment because of his race, national origin, and color. By order dated October 13, 2021, 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 thirty 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. 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. The Supreme Court has held that, under Rule 8, a complaint must 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. 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. Id. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Kervin Jeanty alleges the following facts. Plaintiff resides in Orange County, New York, is of Haitian national origin, and is “Hispanic/African American.” (ECF 2 at 3.) The company Blue Rhino, which has its headquarters in North Carolina, denied Plaintiff a sign-on bonus for a position with Blue Rhino in Orange County, New York. It appears that Plaintiff was hired, though he does not specify when his employment began. On an unspecified date, Plaintiff “was terminated after another employee was hired.” (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff “was the only black employee.” (Id.) Plaintiff attaches to the complaint a document stating that Ferrellgas, Inc. made him an offer for seasonal employment beginning March 4, 2019, contingent on his meeting certain

requirements (drug screening, background review, physical ability test, and more). (Id. at 8.) The offer specified that the seasonal employment would end in October, which appears to mean October 2019. Plaintiff contends that his employer — which may refer to Ferrellgas, Inc. or Blue Rhino, or both — retaliated against him but does not give any facts about the basis for the retaliation or what occurred. Plaintiff did not file an administrative charge with the New York State Division of Human Rights or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Plaintiff names as defendants in this action Blue Rhino, Ferrellgas, Inc. of Kansas, and several individuals (“Tod” Brown, James Ferrell, and “John Doe (de Jan)”). Plaintiff does not mention Ferrellgas, Inc. or the individual defendants in the body of the complaint, and it is

unclear what part these defendants played in the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff brings claims under federal and state law, seeking damages.1

1 This action is one of four that Plaintiff filed the same day. See Jeanty v. Bottini Fuel Oil, ECF 1:21-CV-8316, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 7, 2021) (complaint asserting claims under Title VII and alleging that he was “fired for not driving in the snow”); Jeanty v. United Parcel Service, ECF 1:21-CV-08312, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 7, 2021) (complaint alleging that Plaintiff was not hired due to discrimination); Jeanty v. UPS United Parcel Service Freight, 1:21-CV-8311, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 7, 2021) (same). Plaintiff also brought prior actions that are closed. See, e.g., Jeanty v. Precision Pipeline Solutions LLC, ECF 7:18-CV-7721, 78 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2021) (granting summary judgment for employer on Title VII claim); Jeanty v. Newburgh Beacon Bus Corp., 7:17-CV-9175, 30 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2018) (CS) (granting motion to dismiss employment discrimination claims). DISCUSSION A. Claims Under 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. § 2000e-2(a). This antidiscrimination provision prohibits employers from mistreating an individual because of the individual’s protected characteristics, Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir. 2007), or retaliating against an employee who has opposed any practice made unlawful by those statutes, see Crawford v. Metro. Gov’t, 555 U.S. 271, 276 (2009) (holding that conduct is protected when it “confront[s],” “resist[s],” or “withstand[s]” unlawful actions).

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)
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
455 U.S. 385 (Supreme Court, 1982)
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)
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)
Boomer v. Bruno
134 F. Supp. 2d 262 (N.D. New York, 2001)
Jenkins v. Arcade Building Maintenance
44 F. Supp. 2d 524 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Hardaway v. Hartford Public Works Department
879 F.3d 486 (Second Circuit, 2018)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jeanty v. Blue Rhino, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeanty-v-blue-rhino-nysd-2021.