Samuels v. New York Department of Labor

Background

Justin Samuels proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that defendants violated his rights in connection with his 2020 application to the New York Department of Labor for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation while he was in Spain. He currently resides in Portugal.

The New York Department of Labor initially awarded benefits but later found Samuels ineligible and determined that he had been overpaid $1,456 in Pandemic Unemployment Assistance and $3,600 in Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation. An administrative law judge ruled in Samuels’s favor, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed that decision. Samuels alleged that the Board did not order him to repay the funds.

Samuels also alleged that he and other activists advocated for Americans overseas who had unemployment-benefit problems. He claimed that New York Department of Labor Commissioner Roberta Reardon and employee Denise Montran retaliated against him for that advocacy. He further alleged that overseas applicants received different treatment and that New York’s reporting policies discriminated based on dual citizenship and overseas location. He asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Human Rights Laws, the Tucker Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Pandemic unemployment benefits

The court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to award the benefits Samuels sought. New York law provided a review process for an adverse Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board decision, including an appeal to the Appellate Division, Third Department. Relying on Second Circuit authority, the court explained that a federal district court cannot directly review a state administrative and judicial determination in order to restore unemployment benefits.

Claims against the New York officials

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims for damages against Reardon and Montran in their official capacities. It also dismissed the First Amendment retaliation claims against them in both their personal capacities for damages and official capacities for injunctive relief because Samuels did not allege facts showing what either official personally did, that either knew about his advocacy, or that either acted because of it.

The court also rejected the equal-protection theories. Injunctive relief was unavailable because the temporary pandemic benefit programs had expired before Samuels filed suit. As to damages against Reardon personally, the allegations did not show her personal involvement in inconsistent benefits decisions, did not identify a sufficiently similar comparison applicant, and did not show that any policy considering geographic location lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest.

Claims against the United States Department of Labor

The court explained that federal agencies generally have sovereign immunity unless Congress has waived it. The Little Tucker Act did not waive immunity for Samuels’s constitutional claims because he did not identify a separate law requiring payment of damages. The Administrative Procedure Act’s waiver also did not help because Samuels did not identify a federal agency action connected to his allegations that the United States Department of Labor failed to instruct or supervise states.

The court additionally held that Samuels failed to state a constitutional claim against the United States Department of Labor. The Administrative Procedure Act could not authorize review of New York Department of Labor decisions because it applies to federal agencies, not state agencies.

Remaining claims and disposition

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. It also declined to allow another amendment because the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured by further amendment.

The court dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)–(iii), which covers failure to state a claim and claims seeking relief from an immune defendant, and dismissed some claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h). The court directed the Clerk to enter judgment. It certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.