Vazquez v. Jawonio

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 11, 2022
Docket7:22-cv-01225
StatusUnknown

This text of Vazquez v. Jawonio (Vazquez v. Jawonio) 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
Vazquez v. Jawonio, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

CDNA@IOLT SUL Vth hae Ae er

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT || DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELEC RON ICALLY nal Ae a ee □□

Plaintiff, -against- 22-CV-1225 (VB) JAWANIO; TERRY PARKER; STEPHEN ORDER TO AMEND PELGRAM; CAROL ST. JOHN, Defendants. VINCENT L. BRICCETTI, United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action alleging that her employer created a hostile work environment, retaliated against her, and terminated her from her job. By order dated March 3, 2022, Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain 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 by May 9, 2022. 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). But the “special solicitude” in pro se cases, id. at 475, 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 USS. 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 This action arises out of Plaintiff’s employment with Jawonio, Inc., a social services organization located in New City, Rockland County, New York.' Plaintiff, who resides in Garnerville, Rockland County, New York, filed her complaint by completing a form provided by the court titled, “Employment Discrimination Complaint.” In the section of the form instructing Plaintiff to check the box next to the statute she claims Defendants violated, Plaintiff does not check any of the boxes. In the section of the form instructing her to identify any adverse

‘In the caption of the complaint, Plaintiff spells her employer’s name “Jawanio,” but in the body of the complaint, she spells it “Jawonio,” which is consistent with the company’s spelling. See jawonio.org. The Court will therefore refer to this defendant with the correct spelling and direct the Clerk of Court to change the caption of this action on the court’s electronic filing system.

employment action, she checks off the boxes next to the following options: “terminated my employment . . . provided me with terms and conditions of employment different from those of similar employees . . . [and] harassed me or created a hostile work environment.” (ECF 2, at 5.) In this same section, Plaintiff states: “Harrassment & Retailation” and that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) “adopted [her] case.” (/d.) In Plaintiff’s statement of facts, where she describes the events that transpired at her workplace, she alleges that in June 2021, she reported to the Justice Center with concerns of the residents (Special needs) As well as filed complaints to managers for not training me started with Jawonio 3/8/2021. Jawonio created a hostile environment as well as staff and manager making me feel uncomfortable in my work zone. Filed complaints to Human Rights then EEOC adopted my case. Terry Parker (Human Resources) was aware of all my concerns regarding Harrassment & Retailation decided to have me be transferred to another site where our residents have acute behavioral issues. On June 21, 2021 she wanted me to sign a transfer to Rustic House I refuse to sign those papers for the fact of the Harrassment with managers and staff the problems were not handled properly to have me transferred I was disappointed. EEOC has all the documents to my case I will attach the letter by EEOC. (id.) (errors in original). The complaint indicates that Plaintiff filed a charge with the EEOC. (See id. at 6.) After filing her charge, Plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter, issued by the EEOC on December 17, 2021. (ECF 3-1.) The EEOC indicated in its letter that it had “adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated the charge,” (/d.). In addition to naming Jawonio as a defendant, Plaintiff also names Terry Parker, from Human Resources, who Plaintiff alleges was aware of Plaintiff’s complaints of harassment and retaliation. She also includes Stephen Pelgram and Carol St. John as defendants but does not state any facts suggesting their personal involvement. Plaintiff seeks money damages in an unspecified amount.

DISCUSSION A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction The subject matter jurisdiction of the federal district courts is limited and is set forth generally in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Under these statutes, federal jurisdiction is available only when a “federal question” is presented or when plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. ““[I]t is common ground that in our federal system of limited jurisdiction any party or the court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings, may raise the question of whether the court has subject matter jurisdiction.’” United Food & Com. Workers Union, Loc. 919 v. CenterMark Props. Meriden Square, Inc., 30 F.3d 298, 301 (2d Cir. 1994); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); Ruhrgas AG v.

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

Related

Hertz Corp. v. Friend
559 U.S. 77 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Wisconsin Department of Corrections v. Schacht
524 U.S. 381 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Ruhrgas Ag v. Marathon Oil Co.
526 U.S. 574 (Supreme Court, 1999)
Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
547 U.S. 677 (Supreme Court, 2006)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Spiegel v. Schulmann
604 F.3d 72 (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)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Cherry v. Toussaint
50 F. App'x 476 (Second Circuit, 2002)
Raspardo v. Carlone
770 F.3d 97 (Second Circuit, 2014)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Vazquez v. Jawonio, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vazquez-v-jawonio-nysd-2022.