Johnson v. Marchiano

Background

Ibrahim X. Johnson, who was proceeding without a lawyer and had previously been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, sued the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH), Maria Marchiano, Edward Edwards, Marcia Grant, and Yessenia Ramos Cruz. The court understood the complaint to assert race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, age-discrimination claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and race, sex, and age discrimination claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.

Johnson alleged that he filed charges with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 13, 2024, because of a grievance against OATH. He alleged that OATH terminated his employment on August 30, 2024, saying that it no longer needed his services. He also alleged that OATH’s practice of terminating employees after they file discrimination complaints violates those employees’ free-speech rights. Johnson sought reinstatement and money damages.

The complaint identified Marchiano as a chief clerk, Edwards as a hearing support manager, and Grant as the chief of human resources at an OATH location. It identified Cruz as a branch manager at an unidentified entity in the Bronx. Johnson did not allege facts explaining how any of these four individuals personally participated in his firing or in discriminatory conduct.

Court’s Analysis

Because Johnson was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen the complaint. Screening means reviewing the complaint at the beginning of the case to determine whether it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks authority. The court also applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief.

The court concluded that the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 because Johnson did not provide facts supporting his assertion that OATH discriminated against him because of his age or gender. The complaint also did not explain why filing charges with the state agency and the federal agency caused OATH to terminate him. The court further found that Johnson had not alleged facts showing the personal involvement of Marchiano, Edwards, Grant, or Cruz.

For the Title VII claims, the court stated that Johnson needed facts plausibly suggesting that race or sex was a motivating factor in OATH’s decision to terminate him. The court found that the complaint contained no such facts. For the age-discrimination claims, the court stated that Johnson needed facts suggesting that his age was the reason for the termination and found that he had not alleged them. Under the state and city human-rights laws, the court explained that individuals may be liable for aiding or abetting discrimination, but Johnson had not alleged that the individual defendants participated in discriminatory conduct.

Disposition

The court granted Johnson leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. 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, when and where the events occurred, Johnson’s injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Johnson must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider.

The court ordered Johnson to submit the amended complaint to the Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-7267 (LTS). No summons will issue at this time. The court stated that if Johnson does not comply within the allowed time and cannot show good cause for the failure, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson the ability to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.