Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 29, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-02875
StatusUnknown

This text of Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education (Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education) 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
Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK TESHA L. WINDLEY/EDWARDS, Plaintiff, 24-CV-2875 (LTS) -against- ORDER TO AMEND NYC DEPT. OF EDUCATON; SUSAN BARNES; ANDREA TUCCI, Defendants. LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge: Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, filed this complaint alleging that she was denied her “human right to work as a school counselor.” (ECF 1.) By order dated April 19, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 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 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 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 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 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 Named as Defendants in this action are: (1) the New York City Department of Education;

and (2) Susan Barnes and Andrea Tucci, who appear to be the principal and vice-principal of P.S. 112X, a public school in the Bronx where Plaintiff works as a teacher. (ECF 1.) Following are the factual allegations in Plaintiff’s two-page complaint, regarding events occurring in September 2017 and September 2022. Plaintiff, who has a master’s degree in school counseling, twice applied for open school counselor positions at P.S.112X; both times she was not hired, and individuals who did not already work at the school were hired. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated her “human rights by denying [her] employment from a teacher to a school counselor,” and that human rights “are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex or religion or any other status.” Plaintiff does not assert any causes of action, and she does not specify the nature of the relief she seeks. DISCUSSION Federal antidiscrimination statutes prohibit employers from mistreating an individual because of the individual’s protected characteristics, Patane v. Clark, 508 F.3d 106, 112 (2d Cir.

2007), which may include the individual’s race, color, sex, age, religion, or disability. 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)). These antidiscrimination provisions prohibit employers 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 these 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)). At the pleading stage in an employment discrimination action, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that (1) the employer took adverse employment action against her, and (2) a protected trait, such as her race, color, sex, age, religion, or disability was a motivating factor in the employment decision.” Vega v. Hempstead Union Free Sch. Dist., 801 F.3d 72, 86 (2d Cir. 2015). As to the second element, a plaintiff alleging age discrimination must also allege “that the relevant protected trait ‘was the ‘but-for’ cause of the employer’s adverse action.’” Mazzeo v. Mnuchin, 751 Fed. Appx. 13, 14 (2d Cir. 2018) (quotation omitted). The plaintiff “may do so by alleging facts that directly show discrimination or facts that indirectly show discrimination,” which give rise to a “plausible inference of discrimination.” Id. at 87.

Plaintiff alleges that, although she possessed all the qualifications to be hired as a school counselor, Defendants twice declined to hire her to work in that capacity. While not being hired may constitute an adverse employment action, Plaintiff does not provide facts showing that Defendants impermissibly discriminated against her on the basis of a protected characteristic such as her race, sex, age, religion, or disability.

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

Related

Kinneary v. City of New York
601 F.3d 151 (Second Circuit, 2010)
Coppedge v. United States
369 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1962)
Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown
466 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court, 1984)
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)
Hedges v. Town of Madison
456 F. App'x 22 (Second Circuit, 2012)
Laurance A. Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers
192 F.3d 322 (Second Circuit, 1999)
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)
Hardaway v. Hartford Public Works Department
879 F.3d 486 (Second Circuit, 2018)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu
222 F.3d 99 (Second Circuit, 2000)
Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School District
801 F.3d 72 (Second Circuit, 2015)
Salahuddin v. Cuomo
861 F.2d 40 (Second Circuit, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/windleyedwards-v-nyc-dept-of-education-nysd-2024.