Zimmerman v. Department of Board Education
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-05387
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
Zimmerman v. Department of Education/EEOC: Judge Swain dismissed Zimmerman’s race-discrimination case because her amended complaint lacked supporting facts.
Deborah Zimmerman’s Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law claims against the New York City Department of Education were dismissed, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission remained a defendant against whom the court found no actionable Title VII claim. The court also denied fee-free appeal status.
What happened
In Zimmerman v. New York City Department of Education/EEOC, Deborah Zimmerman alleged that her employer discriminated against her because of her race under federal and New York law. She described workplace events including a required medical examination, alleged slander, incorrect signatures on examination notices, and insufficient notice of the appointment.
The court said the amended complaint still did not allege that any mistreatment or adverse employment action was because of race or another characteristic protected by federal employment-discrimination law. It also said Zimmerman provided no allegations against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and that Title VII does not allow a lawsuit against the agency or its employees over how they investigated or processed a discrimination charge.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the action, declined to allow another amendment, directed the Clerk to enter judgment, and denied fee-free appeal status because the court certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Zimmerman v. Department of Board Education · No. 1:24-cv-05387
- Laura Swain
- July 7, 2025
Background
Deborah Zimmerman proceeded without a lawyer and was granted permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. She brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging that her employer discriminated against her because of her race.
The original complaint named the New York City Department of Education and alleged that Zimmerman was employed in some capacity at P.S. 186 in the Bronx. The court understood her to allege that employees of a different ethnic background mistreated her at work because of her race, but found that she did not explain what happened. The court also found that her allegations about being required to see a medical examiner and someone impersonating her did not suggest race discrimination or retaliation. On October 28, 2024, the court gave her permission to file an amended complaint.
Zimmerman filed an amended complaint on December 27, 2024. She added the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as a defendant and described additional events, including a required medical examination, reasons for that examination that she characterized as slander, allegedly incorrect signatures on examination notices, and inadequate notice of the appointment. The court noted that the amended complaint was difficult to read and that some allegations could not be deciphered.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the amended complaint still did not allege facts showing that any mistreatment or adverse employment action was caused by race or another characteristic protected by Title VII. At the pleading stage, an employment-discrimination complaint must plausibly allege both an adverse employment action and that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in the employment decision.
The court also held that Zimmerman did not make any allegations against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or explain why she named it as a defendant. The court stated that Title VII provides no express or implied cause of action against the agency or its employees based on the investigation or processing of an employment-discrimination charge.
Because Zimmerman had already been given an opportunity to amend and the defects could not be cured by another amendment, the court declined to grant further leave to amend.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.