Szlosek v. NYS Office of the Attorney General

Background

Donna E. Szlosek proceeded without a lawyer and sued the New York State Office of the Attorney General (OAG), her former employer. She alleged that she experienced age- and disability-based discrimination while working as a paralegal from May 2019 through April 5, 2023. Her allegations included workplace bullying, denial of accommodations for a spine condition, difficult physical assignments, verbal abuse, threats related to sick leave, attempted cancellation of disability and health insurance, and termination because she could not return to work within the OAG’s required timeframe.

Szlosek asserted claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She sought money damages. She filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge in approximately August 2023, received a right-to-sue notice on November 14, 2023, and filed this action on February 6, 2024.

Motion and jurisdictional issue

The OAG moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear a case. The OAG argued that the Eleventh Amendment gives New York State sovereign immunity, meaning protection from certain lawsuits in federal court.

The court explained that this immunity generally bars private individuals from suing a nonconsenting state in federal court. It concluded that New York State had not consented to federal suits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, or the New York City Human Rights Law. The court also concluded that the OAG, as a New York State agency, was entitled to the State’s immunity.

The court rejected the possible exception for prospective injunctive relief against state officials because Szlosek sought money damages. It therefore held that the Eleventh Amendment deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction over her claims. The court did not decide whether the factual allegations would establish age or disability discrimination on the merits. In a footnote, the court stated that it was expressing no opinion about whether Szlosek could bring a successful failure-to-accommodate claim under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which was not the basis of the claims addressed in the ruling.

Leave to amend and disposition

Szlosek asked for permission to amend her complaint. Courts generally allow amendment when justice requires, but they may deny it when amendment would be futile, meaning it could not cure the legal defect. The court found that amendment would be futile because the OAG remained protected by sovereign immunity and Szlosek’s supplemental allegations did not establish an exception to that immunity.

The court granted the OAG’s motion to dismiss with prejudice. It also found that amendment would be futile, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion, and closed the case.