Williams v. Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-10323
StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside (Williams v. Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside) 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
Williams v. Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DERICK LOUIS WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, -against- 23-CV-10323 (LTS) SAMARITAN DAYTOP VILLAGE ORDER TO AMEND WOODSIDE SENIOR CENTER; TONYA CHESTNUT; ROBERT KLOEPPING, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff Derick Louis Williams, who is proceeding pro se, asserts claims regarding his supervisors’ alleged mistreatment of him while he performed his job as a custodian at Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside Senior Center. By order dated November 20, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, that is, without prepayment of fees. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint within 60 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 of the claims raised. 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. Rule 8 requires a complaint to make a short and plain statement showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A complaint states a claim for relief if the claim is plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). To review a complaint for plausibility, the Court accepts all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in the pleader’s favor. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court need not accept, however, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action,” which are essentially legal conclusions. Id. at 678 (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. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action asserting that Defendants threatened him with losing his job, treated him differently because he is a man, made racist comments toward him, and retaliated against him. He names as Defendants Samaritan Daytop Woodside Senior Center (“Senior Center”), which is located in Queens County; Tonya Chestnut, Senior Center’s Program Director; and Robert Kloepping, Assistant to a Vice President at a Samaritan Daytop location in Bronx County. Plaintiff alleges the following: “[Defendants] threaten my job several times and I don’t have a food handler licens[e][.] I’ve been doing this job under pressure that I might lose my job or get written up for insubordinate.[.] I just received a write up for poor work performance by Ms. Chestnut that retaliation.”1 (ECF 1, at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that he suffered the following injuries: “On Oct 13, 2023 I ask Tonya Chestnut to call me ambulance and she refused to get me

medical assistance.” (Id. at 6.) He seeks unspecified monetary damages. Plaintiff attaches to the complaint a charge that he filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights (“DHR”). The DHR charge indicates that Plaintiff works as a custodian at the Senior Center and asserts that Defendants discriminated and retaliated against him because he opposed discrimination and because of his marital status (single). (Id. at 12.) The DHR charge also indicates that he received “a disciplinary notice or negative performance review,” he suffered harassment or intimidation, and was “forced to be a kitchen helper when I’m a custodian.” (Id. at 13.) Plaintiff contends that Chestnut “uses her director manager status to intimidate and harass male employee like custodian Derick Williams.” (Id. at 21.)

Plaintiff also attaches a “2nd Written Warning,” dated August 3, 2023, from Chestnut, claiming that Plaintiff showed “insubordination” and “poor job performance.” (Id. at 18.) This warning, Plaintiff contends, is an example of Chestnut’s retaliation against Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s allegations regarding Kloepping, contained in his DHR charge, concern an incident between the two. Briefly, Plaintiff states that he informed Kloepping that he intended to take time off from work, and Kloepping stated in response, “Well if you don’t show up you would be fired[.]” (Id. at 24.) This discussion led to Kloepping encouraging Plaintiff to “swing” at him, a comment Plaintiff understood to be “said in a racist manner because only thing Black

1 The Court quotes from the complaint verbatim. All spelling, grammar, and punctuation are as in the original, unless noted otherwise. men can do is swing on people and fight people they can’t sit down and have a civil conversation or meeting of the minds with any other person especially Robert Kloepping . . . it’s clear to see that I am the target.” (Id. at 27.) Later, after Plaintiff explained to Kloepping why he needed to take time off from work, Kloepping “came back and said Derick I’m sorry I apologize I’m very sorry[.]” (Id.)

This incident appears related to Plaintiff’s allegation that Kloepping and Chestnut mistreat Plaintiff: “[H]e throw that in the air a lot and he very disrespectful with the recovery people and I guess he thought I was recovering and he can talk to me in that manner everybody deserve respect recovering or not and him, Ms. Chestnut use that tactic as a fair tactic to intimidate people and threaten their job and harass me[.]” (Id. at 26.) DISCUSSION The Court construes the complaint as asserting race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 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).

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)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Dixon v. International Federation of Accountants
416 F. App'x 107 (Second Circuit, 2011)
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)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Abdu-Brisson v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
239 F.3d 456 (Second Circuit, 2001)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Williams v. Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-samaritan-daytop-village-woodside-nysd-2024.