Opinion
22-CV-7806 (LTS)
11-07-2022
ANA E. CALDERON, Plaintiff, v. COMMUNITY PRESERVATION CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER TO AMEND
LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN, Chief United States District Judge:
Plaintiff, who is appearing pro se, brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities (“ADA”) Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), alleging that Defendant Community Preservation Corporation (“CPC”) discriminated against her in her employment. She also asserts state law claims, including breach of contract, wrongful termination, and “personal injury.” By order dated September 13, 2022, 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 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 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
The following facts are drawn from the complaint. In February 2022,
I was discriminated by CPC's employees after disclosing [to] them my protected disability. They failed to accommodate my needs. But instead decided to lay me off. Both the HR manager and the CEO discriminated [against] me. I described the symptoms of my illness, I provided Dr's letter, but still was discriminated and rejected, ending in my dismissal of the offer. And leaving me unemployed.(ECF 1, at 5.) Plaintiff alleges, “I was very happy to be part of the company, however, my boss did not want to train me as done in previous situations.” (Id. at 6.) She contends that “[t]he HR manager wrote a false statement about my dismissal stating that I did not want to take a computer course.” (Id.) She seeks $8,000,000 in damages.
DISCUSSION
A. Fair Labor Standards Act
Plaintiff alleges that CPC violated the FLSA, which seeks to eliminate “labor conditions detrimental to the maintenance of the minimum standard of living necessary for health, efficiency, and general well-being of workers.” 29 U.S.C. § 202(a). It does so, in part, by setting substantive wage, hour, and overtime standards. Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., 563 U.S. 1, 11 (2011). The statute requires all employers to pay each of their employees “not less than” the prevailing minimum wage. 29 U.S.C. § 206(a)(1).
There is no administrative-exhaustion requirement for claims brought under the FLSA. See Barrentine v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., Inc. 450 U.S. 728, 740 (1981). The limitation period in which to bring a claim under FLSA is generally two years, but if the violation is willful, it is three years. 29 U.S.C. § 255(a). A claim under the FLSA accrues “when the employer fails to pay the required compensation for any workweek at the regular pay day for the period in which the workweek ends.” 29 C.F.R. § 790.21(b).
The facts alleged in the complaint do not suggest that CPC violated the FSLA with respect to Plaintiff's employment. In fact, Plaintiff does not mention her wages or allege CPC's failure to pay her the required compensation. Plaintiff therefore fails to state a claim under the FLSA. As set forth below, however, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend her FLSA claim.
B. Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff asserts that CPC violated the ADA by failing to accommodate her disability. As described below, Plaintiff does not state a claim under the ADA.
“The ADA prohibits discrimination against a ‘qualified individual on the basis of disability' in the ‘terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.'” Kinneary v. City of New York, 601 F.3d 151, 155 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). A person is disabled under the ADA if the person has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). Discrimination under the ADA includes “a failure to make reasonable modifications.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
To state a claim for discrimination in violation of the ADA, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that she suffered an adverse employment action and provide facts suggesting that plaintiff's disability was a motivating factor in the adverse employment action. See Dooley v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 636 Fed.Appx. 16, 21 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order).
Plaintiff has not stated a claim under the ADA for three reasons. First, she does not describe her disability or state facts suggesting that she is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. For example, she does not identify any “physical or mental impairment” or explain how any alleged impairment “substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). Second, she does not describe the ways in which her employer failed to accommodate her disability. Third, she does not state facts suggesting that her disability was a motivating factor in her employer's decision not to accommodate her disability, or to terminate her employment.
Because Plaintiff states that CPC violated the ADA with respect to her disability, the Court grants her leave to amend this claim.
C. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
1. Charge Alleging ADA Violation Must Be Filed Within 300 Days of Discriminatory Conduct With the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
As a precondition to filing suit under the ADA, a plaintiff must first file a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 626(e); see also Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135, 146 (2d Cir. 2012). In New York, this charge must be filed with the EEOC within 300 days of the alleged act of discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2); see Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002); Tewksbury v. Ottaway Newspapers, 192 F.3d 322, 325-28 (2d Cir. 1999). A plaintiff may then file a federal complaint with a district court within 90 days of receiving a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, if she is does not prevail during her EEOC proceedings. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).
These time limits are not jurisdictional and are subject to equitable tolling. See Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113 (citing to Zipes v. Trans. World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982)).
Equitable tolling of the statute of limitations is “only appropriate in rare and exceptional circumstances, in which a party is prevented in some extraordinary way from exercising his rights.” Zerilli-Edelglass, 333 F.3d at 80 (internal quotation marks, alteration, and citations omitted). To obtain the benefit of equitable tolling, a plaintiff must show (1) that he acted with reasonable diligence during the time period tolled, and (2) that extraordinary circumstances justify the application of the doctrine. Id.
2. ADA Claim May Not Be Exhausted
Here, Plaintiff alleges that CPC violated the ADA in February 2022. She does not state, however, whether she filed a charge with the EEOC. If Plaintiff proceeds with this action, without first exhausting her ADA claim, that claim may be dismissed for failure to exhaust.
LEAVE TO AMEND
Plaintiff proceeds in this matter without the benefit of an attorney. District courts generally should grant a self-represented plaintiff an opportunity to amend a complaint to cure its defects, unless amendment would be futile. See Hill v. Curcione, 657 F.3d 116, 123-24 (2d Cir. 2011); Salahuddin v. Cuomo, 861 F.2d 40, 42 (2d Cir. 1988). Indeed, the Second Circuit has cautioned that district courts “should not dismiss [a pro se complaint] without granting leave to amend at least once when a liberal reading of the complaint gives any indication that a valid claim might be stated.” Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99, 112 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Gomez v. USAA Fed. Sav. Bank, 171 F.3d 794, 795 (2d Cir. 1999)). Because Plaintiff may be able to allege additional facts to state a valid FLSA and ADA claims, the Court grants Plaintiff 60 days' leave to amend her complaint to detail her claims.
Plaintiff is granted leave to amend his complaint to provide more facts about her claims. In the “Statement of Claim” section of the amended complaint form, Plaintiff must provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant. If Plaintiff has an address for any named defendant, Plaintiff must provide it. Plaintiff should include all of the information in the amended complaint that Plaintiff wants the Court to consider in deciding whether the amended complaint states a claim for relief. That information should include:
a) the names and titles of all relevant people;
b) a description of all relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, the approximate date and time of each event, and the general location where each event occurred;
c) a description of the injuries Plaintiff suffered; and d) the relief Plaintiff seeks, such as money damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory relief.
Essentially, Plaintiff's amended complaint should tell the Court: who violated her federally protected rights and how; when and where such violations occurred; and why Plaintiff is entitled to relief.
Because Plaintiff's amended complaint will completely replace, not supplement, the original complaint, any facts or claims that Plaintiff wants to include from the original complaint must be repeated in the amended complaint.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint that complies with the standards set forth above. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint to this Court's Pro Se Intake Unit within sixty days of the date of this order, caption the document as an “Amended Complaint,” and label the document with docket number 22-CV-7806 (LTS). An Amended Complaint for Employment Discrimination form is attached to this order. No summons will issue at this time. If Plaintiff fails to comply within the time allowed, and she cannot show good cause to excuse such failure, the complaint will be dismissed 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.