Opinion
1:19-CV-00130 EAW
2020-04-16
Dedric JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. XYLEM INC. and Local 897 Steelworker Union, Defendants.
Dedric Johnson, Cheektowaga, NY, pro se.
Dedric Johnson, Cheektowaga, NY, pro se.
DECISION AND ORDER
ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge
INTRODUCTION
Pro se plaintiff Dedric Johnson ("Plaintiff") brings this action alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as codified, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 - 12117 (amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166 ) ("ADA"). (Dkt. 1 at 1). Plaintiff asserts that his rights were violated by Xylem, Inc. ("Xylem") and Local 897 Steel Worker Union ("Local 897") (collectively, "Defendants") in connection to his wrongful termination. Plaintiff has also submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and an affirmation of poverty in support thereof. (Dkt. 2).
The Court grants Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis . Having reviewed the Complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court finds that Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims must be dismissed. However, Plaintiff will be granted an opportunity to remedy the defect as discussed below.
BACKGROUND
In bringing suit, Plaintiff used a form discrimination complaint that prompts a litigant to place check marks next to, for example, the laws under which the litigant wishes to bring claims and the characteristic based on which the defendant engaged in discriminatory conduct. (Dkt. 1). The following facts are taken from Plaintiff's form Complaint. (Id. ). As required at this stage of the proceedings, the Court treats Plaintiff's allegations as true. Plaintiff worked at Xylem, which builds units for government use. (Id. at ¶ 19). Plaintiff alleges that he was terminated because he had purportedly built two units incorrectly. (Id. ). Plaintiff maintains that he did not build the two units as he had recently returned back to work having been in a car accident and thus had not been building units. (Id. ).
Plaintiff alleges that Xylem is required to maintain records and contracts when manufacturing units. (Id. ). However, Xylem did not or would not produce such records and contracts concerning the two units at issue. (Id. ). As such, Plaintiff alleges that there was no documentation identifying Plaintiff as having built the units. (Id. ). Plaintiff further alleges that he was terminated with "no just cause or proof [that he] violated any procedures" and that Xylem did not keep the contract that Plaintiff had used to perform the job. (Id. at ¶ 13).
On his form Complaint, Plaintiff marked that Defendants' conduct was discriminatory with respect to Plaintiff's race, color, and disability. (Id. at ¶ 14). Further, Plaintiff marked that he was complaining of the following types of actions taken by Defendants: termination of his employment; harassment on the basis of unequal terms and conditions of his employment; and retaliation because he had complained about discrimination or harassment directed towards him. (Id. at ¶ 13).
DISCUSSION
I. Plaintiff's Motion for In Forma Pauperis Status is Granted
Plaintiff's motion for in forma pauperis status and affirmation of poverty in support thereof have been reviewed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Plaintiff has met the statutory requirements for in forma pauperis status, and, therefore, permission to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.
II. Legal Standard
" Section 1915 requires the Court to conduct an initial screening of complaints filed by civil litigants proceeding in forma pauperis , to ensure that the case goes forward only if it meets certain requirements." Guess v. Jahromi , No. 6:17-CV-06121(MAT), 2017 WL 1063474, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2017), reconsideration denied , 2017 WL 1489142 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 2017). In evaluating the complaint, a court must accept as true all of the plaintiff's factual allegations and must draw all inferences in the plaintiff's favor. See, e.g. , Larkin v. Savage , 318 F.3d 138, 139 (2d Cir. 2003). Upon conducting this initial screening, a court must dismiss the case pursuant to § 1915(e)(2)(B) "if the [c]ourt determines that the action (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." Eckert v. Schroeder, Joseph & Assocs. , 364 F. Supp. 2d 326, 327 (W.D.N.Y. 2005).
III. Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims must be dismissed because while Plaintiff alleges that he filed a charge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 10), he has failed to allege that he received a right-to-sue letter (id. at ¶¶ 12, 18), a necessary precondition to commencing a federal lawsuit.
Individuals may bring Title VII and ADA claims in federal court only after filing a timely charge with the EEOC and receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), (f) ; see also Legnani v. Alitalia Linee Aeree Italiane, S.P.A. , 274 F.3d 683, 686 (2d Cir. 2001). Administrative exhaustion is an essential element of Title VII's and the ADA's statutory scheme, the purpose of which is to avoid unnecessary judicial action by the federal courts by "[giving] the administrative agency the opportunity to investigate, mediate, and take remedial action." Stewart v. United States Immigration & Naturalization Serv. , 762 F.2d 193, 198 (2d Cir. 1985). The Second Circuit has held that exhaustion "is a precondition to bringing a Title VII claim in federal court rather than a jurisdictional requirement." Francis v. City of New York , 235 F.3d 763, 768 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). Courts have explained that "[t]he significance of this distinction is that insofar as the district court's subject matter jurisdiction does not depend on the exhaustion of administrative remedies, the requirement is theoretically ‘subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.’ " O'Neal v. State Univ. of N.Y. , No. CV-01-7802 (DGT), 2003 WL 1524664, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Francis , 235 F.3d at 767 ).
In response to being asked whether the EEOC had issued a right-to-sue letter, Plaintiff marked that he had not received such a letter. (See Dkt. 1 at ¶ 18). Further, a right-to-sue letter is not attached to Plaintiff's Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims must be dismissed on the basis that the right-to-sue letter is a precondition to bringing both claims in federal court. See Constantine v. U-Haul Int'l, Inc. , No. 1:15-cv-01204 (MAD/CFH), 2015 WL 7272211, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2015) (dismissing the plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims where the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she received an EEOC right-to-sue letter); Parker v. Mack , No. 09-CV-1049A, 2010 WL 11507368 (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 4, 2010) (holding plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims were subject to dismissal where the plaintiff did not submit a copy of his EEOC right-to-sue letter).
The Court will permit Plaintiff to file an amended complaint in which he must include the necessary allegations regarding his receipt of a right-to-sue letter—if, in fact, he did receive such a letter. Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain any allegations as to the involvement of Local 897. Accordingly, Plaintiff is advised that should he file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must include allegations detailing Local 897's personal involvement in connection to Plaintiff's claims.
IV. Leave to Amend Complaint
As discussed above, Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims, as presently alleged, cannot go forward against Defendants. Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint by May 18, 2020 . Plaintiff is not required to file an amended complaint—but if he fails to do so, his claims will be dismissed without prejudice. The Court will attach to this Order instructions for filing an amended complaint, and the civil complaint form to be used in a non-prisoner context.
Plaintiff is advised that an amended complaint is intended to completely replace the prior complaint in the action, and thus it "renders [the original complaint] of no legal effect." Int'l Controls Corp. v. Vesco , 556 F.2d 665, 668 (2d Cir. 1977). Therefore, Plaintiff's amended complaint must include all of the allegations against Defendants, such that the amended complaint may stand alone as the sole complaint in the action.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The Court dismisses Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims without prejudice. However, Plaintiff is granted leave to file an amended complaint by May 18, 2020 , in which he must include the necessary allegations regarding his claims. ORDER
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2) is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff's Title VII and ADA claims are dismissed without prejudice; and it is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff will be provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint by May 18, 2020 , to remedy the deficiencies set forth herein with respect to his Title VII and ADA claims; and it is further
ORDERED that if Plaintiff fails to file an amended complaint by May 18, 2020 , the Clerk of Court is directed to dismiss the action without prejudice without further action of the Court.
SO ORDERED.