Lall v. New York Housing Authority
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-05508
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Lall v. New York Housing Authority, Judge Furman granted dismissal because Lall filed federal claims late and declined state-law jurisdiction.
Narine Lall’s federal employment-discrimination and retaliation claims were dismissed as untimely; his state and local claims were dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The New York City Housing Authority prevailed on its motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Lall v. New York Housing Authority, Narine Lall, who was representing himself, sued his former employer over alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and local laws. He filed the case after receiving notices allowing him 90 days to sue on the federal claims.
Lall filed 99 days after receiving one notice and 91 days after receiving another. He argued that the deadline should be extended because of advice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and what he said was the court’s confirmation that his filing was timely. The court rejected both reasons.
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the New York Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss. He dismissed the federal claims as untimely, declined to hear the state and local claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
The detailed version
- Lall v. New York Housing Authority · No. 1:24-cv-05508
- Jesse Furman
- Dec. 2, 2024
Background
Narine Lall, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his former employer, the New York City Housing Authority, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and local law. The opinion states that Lall filed the case on July 17, 2024. For the federal statutes involved, the court explained that a plaintiff generally must sue within 90 days after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or, in some circumstances, the Department of Justice.
Lall filed 99 days after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued and he received one right-to-sue letter. He filed 91 days after the Department of Justice emailed him a second right-to-sue letter. The New York City Housing Authority moved under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.
Arguments and analysis
Lall did not dispute that he missed the 90-day deadline. Instead, he argued that equitable tolling should apply. Equitable tolling is a limited doctrine that can extend a filing deadline when a person acted diligently but extraordinary circumstances prevented a timely filing.
Lall identified two circumstances: he said that an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission representative called him on the last permissible filing day and instructed him to file promptly, and he said that the court confirmed after filing that his complaint was timely. The court held that neither circumstance justified extending the deadline. Lall did not explain why he failed to file during the nearly 90 days before the alleged phone call, did not allege that the agency gave him incorrect deadline information, and could have filed immediately and met the deadline. The court also stated that any confirmation from the court after filing could not establish diligence during the earlier filing period.
Ruling
Judge Jesse M. Furman granted the New York City Housing Authority’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed Lall’s federal claims as untimely. It also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state and local claims—in light of the dismissal of the federal claims and the early stage of the case. The court therefore dismissed Lall’s state and local claims without prejudice to refiling them in state court.
The court directed the Clerk to terminate the identified motions, enter judgment in the Housing Authority’s favor consistent with the opinion, and close the case. It also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appellate filing costs.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.