Williams v. The Plaza Rehabilitation and Nursing Center

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 16, 2023·No. 1:23-cv-04438·Unknown

Opinion

[pes SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [bere □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROBIN A. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, 23-CV-4438 (PGG) (BCM) -against- ORDER THE PLAZA REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. On October 10, 2023, the Court ordered plaintiff to amend her complaint no later than November 9, 2023. (Dkt. 28.) The deadline has passed, but plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint. In light of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court, on its own motion, EXTENDS her deadline to amend until December 11, 2023. No further extensions will be granted. The Court's October 10 Order is attached to this order. All remaining provisions of that Order remain in effect.

Dated: New York, New York SO ORDERED. November 16, 2023 Yack BARBARA MOSES United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT | NOAA SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED ROBIN A. WILLIAMS, | aE aD TOTS | Plaintiff, 23-CV-4438 (PGG) (BCM) -against- ORDER THE PLAZA REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER, et al., Defendants.

BARBARA MOSES, United States Magistrate Judge. The above-referenced action has now been referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara Moses for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery, non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, and for report and recommendation on dispositive motions, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). All pretrial motions and applications must be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses. Order to Amend Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that defendants discriminated against her at her workplace on the basis of her "race, age, [and] gender." Compl. (Dkt. 1) at ECF p. 2. In the fact section of her Complaint, plaintiff states that she was threatened with violence by her supervisor, individual defendant John Taylor, and that Ricardo Graham, another individual defendant, "told the entire staff building" that she was "having sexual relations with him." /d. at ECF p. 5. Plaintiff also attaches a right-to-sue letter from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (Dkt. 1-1.) Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and Rule

8(d)(1) requires that each allegation be "simple, concise, and direct." As explained by the United States Supreme Court: [A] complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "A pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of elements of a cause of action will not do.'" Id. (citation omitted). The Supreme Court also held that "a complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders 'naked assertion[s]' devoid of 'further factual enhancement.'" Id. (citation omitted). This plausibility standard applies to all federal complaints, including employment discrimination complaints. See EEOC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 768 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2014) (holding that a discrimination complaint "must at a minimum assert nonconclusory factual matter sufficient to nudge[ ] [its] claims . . . across the line from conceivable to plausible to proceed . . . .") (cleaned up). Plaintiff's allegations, at present, are insufficient to state plausible claims of discrimination. In particular, plaintiff does not provide any facts that suggest that she was discriminated against because of her race, because of her gender, or because she is aged 40 or older.1 Plaintiff is therefore directed to submit an amended complaint in which she identifies her race, gender, and age, and provides facts from which an inference can be made that she was discriminated against because of these characteristics. To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, "a plaintiff must show

1 The Court notes that the Age Discrimination in employment Act (ADEA) "prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of age against persons aged 40 or older." D'Cunha v. Genovese/Eckerd Corp., 479 F.3d 193, 194 (2d Cir. 2007) (citing 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1), 631(a)). The ADEA does not prohibit discrimination against younger individuals. See Johnson v. Wendy's Corp., 2021 WL 243055, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 25, 2021) (collecting cases). membership in the protected age group, qualifications for the jobs at issue, an adverse employment action, and that the adverse action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination." D'Cunha, 479 F.3d at 195. Similarly, to establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination, the plaintiff must show that she is "within a protected group," was "qualified for the position," was subject to an "adverse employment action," and that "the adverse

action occurred under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination based on membership in the protected group." Tappe v. All. Cap. Mgmt. L.P., 177 F. Supp. 2d 176, 180 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). "For sexual harassment to be actionable, it must be sufficiently severe or pervasive . . . to alter the conditions of the [plaintiff's] employment and create an abusive workplace environment." Redd v. New York Div. of Parole, 678 F.3d 166, 175 (2d Cir. 2012) (cleaned up). "And, of course, the plaintiff must establish that the hostile or abusive treatment was because of his or her sex." Id. Here, although plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to discrimination based on her age, race, and gender, the Complaint does not state her age (including whether she is over 40) or identify

her race. Nor does plaintiff allege that she was subject to any adverse employment action "under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination" based on a protected characteristic. Plaintiff is hereby granted leave to amend her complaint to detail her claims as specified above, and directed to do so no later than November 9, 2023, using the attached employment discrimination complaint form.

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

Williams v. The Plaza Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Williams v. The Plaza Rehabilitation and Nursing Center (Williams v. The Plaza Rehabilitation and Nursing Center) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (Supreme Court, 2007)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Redd v. New York Division of Parole
678 F.3d 166 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Tappe v. Alliance Capital Management L.P.
177 F. Supp. 2d 176 (S.D. New York, 2001)