Tavarez v. 32BJ

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 13, 2019·No. 1:18-cv-08517·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ORFELINA TAVAREZ, Plaintiff, 18-CV-8517 (CM) -against- ORDER 32BJ; TRIANGLE SERVICES, Defendants. COLLEEN McMAHON, Chief United States District Judge: By order dated November 1, 2019, the Court construed Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting a hybrid § 301/duty of fair representation (“DFR”) claim. Because Plaintiff filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Resources (DHR), the Court also construed Plaintiff’s complaint as asserting a claim that her employer discriminated against her. Plaintiff’s allegations were insufficient to state a hybrid § 301/DFR claim, because they did not give rise to an inference that 32BJ SEIU acted in a manner that could be characterized as arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Plaintiff also did not allege any facts suggesting that Triangle Services breached the CBA. Plaintiff’s complaint was also bereft of any facts showing that Plaintiff was mistreated or retaliated against because of a protected characteristic. Moreover, it appeared from the complaint and the attached documents that any discrimination claim Plaintiff may wish to assert would be untimely. Because of the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court’s November 1, 2019 order granted Plaintiff sixty days’ leave to amend her complaint to allege enough facts to establish a hybrid § 301/DFR claim or an employment discrimination claim. On November 14, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint using the Court’s form complaint for employment discrimination. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff checks the box indicating her intent to assert a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But where the complaint form asks for Plaintiff to check one or more boxes to state the basis of the alleged discrimination (i.e., race, color, religion, sex, or national origin), Plaintiff does not respond. Another section of the complaint

form directs Plaintiff to state facts that support her claim, but Plaintiff leaves that section blank, and nowhere else in the complaint does she allege any facts suggesting that she was discriminated against based on any protected characteristic. Although the arbitrator’s August 28, 2018 award a indicates that Plaintiff filed a charge with the DHR, Plaintiff checks the box on the complaint form stating that she did not file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or any other government agency, and she states that she did not receive a notice of right to sue from the EEOC. (ECF No. 5 at ¶ V.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint is therefore insufficient to state a hybrid § 301/DFR claim or an employment discrimination claim.

LEAVE TO AMEND Second Circuit precedent is clear that “[a] pro se complaint should not [be] dismiss[ed] without [the Court’s] granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Dolan v. Connolly, 794 F.3d 290, 295 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Chavis v. Chappius, 618 F.3d 162, 170 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although the Court has already given Plaintiff one opportunity to amend, in an abundance of caution, the Court grants her one final opportunity to amend her complaint to allege enough facts to establish a hybrid § 301/DFR claim or an employment discrimination claim. If Plaintiff is unable to meet this burden in a second amended complaint, the Court will have to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. If Plaintiff chooses to file a second amended complaint, the Court again strongly encourages her to ask for assistance from someone who can help her organize her thoughts and

claims. If Plaintiff needs legal advice related to this matter, she may contact the New York Legal Assistance Group’s Legal Clinic for Pro Se Litigants in the Southern District of New York, which is a free legal clinic staffed by attorneys and paralegals to assist those who are representing themselves in civil lawsuits in this Court. A copy of the flyer with details of the clinic is attached to this order. The second amended complaint, if Plaintiff chooses to file one, should be sent to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. In the statement of claim, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant named in the second amended complaint. Plaintiff is also directed to provide the addresses for any named defendants. To the greatest extent possible, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must:

a) give the names and titles of all relevant persons; b) describe all relevant events, stating the facts that support Plaintiff’s case including what each defendant did or failed to do; c) give the dates and times of each relevant event or, if not known, the approximate date and time of each relevant event; d) give the location where each relevant event occurred; e) describe how each defendant’s acts or omissions violated Plaintiff’s rights and describe the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and f) state what relief Plaintiff seeks from the Court, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief. Essentially, the body of Plaintiff’s second amended complaint must tell the Court: who violated her federally protected rights; what facts show that her federally protected rights were violated; when such violation occurred; where such violation occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief. Because Plaintiff's second amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint and the amended complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wishes to maintain must be included in the second amended complaint. CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff and note service on the docket. Plaintiff is granted leave to file a second amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth in the Court’s November 1, 2019 order. Plaintiff must submit the second amended complaint to this Court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within thirty days of the date of this order, caption the document as a “Second Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 18-CV-8517 (CM). A Second Amended Employment Discrimination Complaint form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed and cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the Court will dismiss this action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Court certifies under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Cf Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 444-45 (1962) (holding that an appellant demonstrates good faith when he seeks review of a nonfrivolous issue). SO ORDERED. Dated: December 13, 2019 New York, New York hie. Iu Wyk Chief United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Write the full name of each plaintiff. CV. (Include case number if one has been assigned) “against: Do you want a jury trial? L1Yes LINo

Write the full name of each defendant. The names listed above must be identical to those contained in Section I. SECOND AMENDED EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT

NOTICE The public can access electronic court files.

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

Tavarez v. 32BJ, (S.D.N.Y. 2019).

Tavarez v. 32BJ (Tavarez v. 32BJ) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Chavis v. Chappius
618 F.3d 162 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Dolan v. Connolly
794 F.3d 290 (Second Circuit, 2015)