Jeanty v. UPS United Parcel Service Freight

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedNovember 1, 2021
Docket1:21-cv-08311
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KERVIN JEANTY, Plaintiff, 21-CV-8311 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE FREIGHT; ALAN BEDARD; JOHN DOE (1), 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; and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants refused to hire him because of his race, color, and national origin. By order dated October 26, 2021, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), that is, without prepayment of fees. 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 complaint against three defendants: United Parcel Service (“UPS”), a John Doe UPS employee, and “Alan Bedard,” who the Court assumes is Alain Bedard, the CEO of TFI International.1 Plaintiff’s claims concern Defendants’ decision not

1 Generally, courts may take judicial notice of publicly available information, including from a website. See Force v. Facebook, Inc., 934 F.3d 53, 60 (2d Cir. 2019) (citing 23-34 94th St. Grocery Corp. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Health, 685 F.3d 174, 183 n.7 (2d Cir. 2012) (taking judicial notice of content of website whose authenticity was not in question)). TFI International’s website lists Bedard as the CEO of the company. See https://tfiintl.com/en/people/. to hire him during “Brown Friday,” a UPS job hiring event advertised in November 2019. Plaintiff alleges that during Brown Friday, he sought work at a UPS Freight Rockland County location, but John Doe UPS employee informed Plaintiff that he “did not know anything about [Brown Friday].” (ECF 2, at 5.) Plaintiff further alleges that he visited another location in Rockland County but “was given the run around.” (/d.) Plaintiff contends that after he left the second UPS location, “a[n] unmarked police car followed [him] and pulled [him] over ... [and an officer] illegally searched” his car. (/d.) In reference to this incident, Plaintiff notes that he is African American and Hispanic. Plaintiff does not mention Bedard in the body of the complaint, and it is unclear what role he 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 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) or any other government agency. 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

? 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-08312, 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 now 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).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jeanty v. UPS United Parcel Service Freight, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeanty-v-ups-united-parcel-service-freight-nysd-2021.