AlSariaa v. Tempositions, Inc.

Background

Noora Dhafir AlSariaa, representing herself, sued TemPositions, Inc. “School Professionals,” a temporary employment agency, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She alleged discrimination based on national origin, retaliation, harassment, a hostile work environment, and suspension of her teaching contract.

According to the complaint, TemPositions arranged a temporary position for AlSariaa at New York Junior for Tennis & Learning, a summer program located at a New York City public school in Brooklyn. She began working there on July 13, 2023. On July 26, the assignment ended after she complained about discrimination and hostility based on national origin by school staff. On July 28, TemPositions suspended her teaching contract, and she alleged that she lost her only income. She also alleged that TemPositions did not investigate why the assignment ended and did not provide her another school assignment as she believed their agreement required.

Screening standard

Because AlSariaa had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Title VII analysis

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating because of national origin and from retaliating against an employee who opposes unlawful discrimination. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action and facts showing that a protected characteristic or opposition to discrimination was a motivating factor in the employment decision.

The court held that AlSariaa’s complaint did not state a Title VII claim. Although she referred to her national origin and retaliation, she did not connect an unlawful employment practice to TemPositions. The allegations did not suggest that TemPositions knew her national origin or knew about her opposition to discriminatory practices and then suspended her contract because of either factor. The court declined at this stage to decide whether TemPositions could qualify as her employer under the joint-employer doctrine, which can apply to temporary staffing agencies and their client entities.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted AlSariaa 60 days to file an amended complaint. It directed her to include facts about her national origin, TemPositions’ awareness of it, the discriminatory practices she opposed, and TemPositions’ awareness of and response to that opposition. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims she wants considered must be repeated.

The court ordered that no summons issue at that time. It stated that if AlSariaa failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.

Result

The court granted leave to amend the complaint within 60 days; it did not dismiss the complaint in this order.