Jeanty v. United Parcel Service

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 5, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-08312
StatusUnknown

This text of Jeanty v. United Parcel Service (Jeanty v. United Parcel Service) 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. United Parcel Service, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KERVIN JEANTY, Plaintiff, 21-CV-8312 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND UNITED PARCEL SERVICE; CAROL B. TOME; JOHN DOE (1), Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him based on his race, color, and national origin. By order dated October 22, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 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 The Court must dismiss an IFP 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 brings this action against three defendants: United Parcel Service (“UPS”); Carol B. Tomé, Chief Executive Officer of UPS; and a John Doe UPS employee. Plaintiff alleges that on or about November 1, 2019, during a promotional event known as “Brown Friday,” Plaintiff saw advertisements “that guaranteed a job at UPS.” (ECF 2, at 5.) Plaintiff went to the UPS location in Nanuet, New York, and “was given the run around [and] told to wait.” (Id.) The employees “disput[ed] the ad” and “were rude.” (Id.) Plaintiff waited for ten minutes before an employee told him that “H.R. was gone for the day.” (Id.) “TA]n unmarked Clarkstown Police car” followed Plaintiff after he let the UPS location, and the officer pulled Plaintiff over after another driver “stopped short” in front of him. (/d.) Plaintiff writes, “My vehicle was then illegally searched and I am African American and Hispanic.” Ud.) Plaintiff does not mention Tomé in the body of the complaint, and it is unclear what role she played, if any, in the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff asserts claims under federal and state law, seeking damages.! He indicates that he did not file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or any other government agency, and that he did not receive a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC. (/d. at 6.) 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). Title VII prohibits employers from mistreating an individual because of the individual’s

' This action is one of four that Plaintiff filed the same day. See Jeanty v. Blue Rhino, 1:21-CV-8326, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 7, 2021) (complaint asserting claims under Title VII and alleging that he did not receive a bonus and was eventually terminated); 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-08311, 2 (S.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 7, 2021) (complaint alleging that Plaintiff was not hired due to discrimination). 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) (granting motion to dismiss employment discrimination claims).

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). Mistreatment at work that occurs for a reason other than an employee’s protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct is not

actionable under these federal antidiscrimination statutes. See Chukwuka v. City of New York, 513 F. App’x 34, 36 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Brown v. Henderson, 257 F.3d 246, 252 (2d Cir. 2001)).

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)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)
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. United Parcel Service, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeanty-v-united-parcel-service-nysd-2021.