Zimmerman v. Department of Board Education

Background

Deborah Zimmerman, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Department of Education. She had previously been allowed to proceed without paying court fees in advance. She asserted racial-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Zimmerman identified herself as Black American and alleged that two employees of a different ethnic background violated her rights and that nothing was done because she is Black. She also alleged that she was told to see a medical examiner on November 9, 2022, was not given an explanation for why she could not return to work, and was put out on what she described as illegal retirement. She referred to complaints to her union and identified other alleged workplace events. She appeared to seek reinstatement, a transfer, and money damages. Her complaint included an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice of right to sue dated April 25, 2024.

Court’s Analysis

The court applied the screening rules for a complaint filed without advance payment of fees. Those rules require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief and to allege facts making the claim plausible rather than merely possible.

The court held that the complaint did not state a Title VII claim as pleaded. Although the court understood Zimmerman to allege that employees of a different ethnic background mistreated her because of her race, the complaint did not explain what occurred in sufficient detail. The facts about the medical examiner and the alleged impersonation did not suggest that the Department of Education discriminated or retaliated against her because of her race. The court granted her leave to amend to provide facts supporting the Title VII claim.

The court also addressed a possible hybrid claim involving the employer’s collective bargaining agreement and the union’s duty of fair representation. Zimmerman mentioned that her union failed to represent her appropriately, but she did not name the union as a defendant or explain what duty the union owed her, what it did or failed to do, or whether the Department of Education breached a collective bargaining agreement. The court therefore granted her leave to assert claims against the union if she wished to do so and could provide the necessary facts.

Because the court allowed an amended complaint, it did not decide at that stage whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the federal court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims after federal claims are considered.

Order

The court granted Zimmerman leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including relevant people, events, approximate dates and locations, injuries, and requested relief. It must be labeled “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 24-CV-5387 (LTS).

The amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Zimmerman must repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that she wants the court to consider. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if she did not comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, 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.