Newton v. Bezos

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 3, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-03993·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MELISSA M. NEWTON, Plaintiff, 20-CV-3993(LLS) -against- ORDERTO AMEND JEFF BEZOS, Defendant. LOUIS L. STANTON, United States District Judge: Plaintiff brings this pro se action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112-12117and the New York State Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 to 297, alleging that heremployer, Whole Foods,discriminated against her because of her disability. By order datedMay 22, 2020,the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within sixty 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. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). In reviewing the complaint, the courtmust accept all well- pleaded factual allegations as true.Id. 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. Id. (citing 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.at 678-79. BACKGROUND The following allegations are from Plaintiff Melissa Newton’s complaint. Plaintiff resides in Brooklyn and worked as a cashier at Whole Foods in the Tribeca neighborhood of Manhattan. (ECF 2 at 3). She is disabled with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. (Id.at 4). On December 7, 2019, Plaintiff had a dispute with “Shakira,” the head cashier who was responsible for maintaining scheduled breaks that day. (Id. at 11, 13). Their argument “became personal” and Shakira told Plaintiff that she “had an attitude.” (Id.) Plaintiff states that her breaks were constantly being delayedor changed, either because cash registers were broken or to benefit “someone pregnant or a seemingly dominant male figure.” (Id.at 13.) She alleges that she was “becoming an outcast” (id.) and was subjected to “discrimination” and “retaliatory attacks.” On the day that she was fired, Plaintiff was directed to go upstairs just before her scheduled break. (Id.at 11.) Then she was told to go downstairs and “do a task” that was not one of her usual responsibilities.She was “confronted by 2 team leaders with no good reason” and

told to “punch out” and go home, which worried her because she had no “PTO time” remaining “to cover [the] missing hours.” (Id.) She was told, however, that she would be on administrative leave. Plaintiff states that she is “not sure” what reason she was given for the employer’s action. According to Plaintiff’s IFP application, her last date of employment was December 9, 2020. Plaintiff indicates that she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). She attaches to the complaint a letter from the EEOC dated December 27, 2019, stating that it is issuing her a notice of right to sue. Plaintiff brings this suit under the ADA and the New York State Human Rights Law, seeking damages. She names Jeff Bezos as the sole Defendant.

DISCUSSION “The ADA prohibits discrimination against a ‘qualified individual on the basis of disability’ in the ‘terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.’” Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). A person is disabled under the ADA if the person has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. §12102(1)(A). This antidiscrimination statute prohibits an employer 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). Mistreatment at work that occurs for a reason other than an employee’s protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct is not actionable under 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

Newton v. Bezos, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Newton v. Bezos (Newton v. Bezos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kinneary v. City of New York
601 F.3d 151 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Hill v. Curcione
657 F.3d 116 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Chukwuka v. City of New York
513 F. App'x 34 (Second Circuit, 2013)
McMillan v. City of New York
711 F.3d 120 (Second Circuit, 2013)
Patane v. Clark
508 F.3d 106 (Second Circuit, 2007)
Harris v. Mills
572 F.3d 66 (Second Circuit, 2009)
Feingold v. New York
366 F.3d 138 (Second Circuit, 2004)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)