Windley/Edwards v. NYC Dept. of Education

Background

Tesha L. Windley/Edwards, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education, Susan Barnes, and Andrea Tucci. Barnes and Tucci appeared to be the principal and vice-principal of P.S. 112X, a public school in the Bronx where Windley/Edwards works as a teacher. Windley/Edwards alleged that she had a master’s degree in school counseling and twice applied for open school counselor positions at P.S. 112X, in September 2017 and September 2022. She alleged that she was not hired and that people who did not already work at the school were hired instead.

The complaint said that the defendants violated her “human rights by denying [her] employment from a teacher to a school counselor.” It did not identify any causes of action or specify the relief sought. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Court’s Analysis

Because Windley/Edwards was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or if the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that complaints by people representing themselves are read liberally, but must still provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

The court stated that federal employment-discrimination laws prohibit adverse treatment because of a protected characteristic, including race, color, sex, age, religion, or disability, and prohibit retaliation for opposing unlawful conduct. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action and facts showing that a protected trait was a motivating factor in the employment decision. For age discrimination, the protected trait must be the “but-for” cause of the action.

The court concluded that not being hired could qualify as an adverse employment action, but Windley/Edwards did not allege facts showing discrimination based on a protected characteristic. She also did not allege that the failure to hire her, or another adverse employment decision, occurred because of a protected characteristic. The court therefore found that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 or plausibly state an employment-discrimination claim under the federal antidiscrimination statutes.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Windley/Edwards leave to amend because she might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid employment-discrimination complaint. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including the relevant people and their titles, what each defendant did or failed to do, approximate dates and locations, injuries, and the relief sought. It must also include any original facts or claims that Windley/Edwards wants the court to consider because the amended complaint will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court granted 60 days to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, with the case number and the title “Amended Complaint.” No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if Windley/Edwards did not amend within the allowed time and could not show good cause for the failure, the action would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order.