Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon

Background

Fernando Justino Santana filed the action without a lawyer. He alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against Shook Hardy & Bacon, Kelly Frazier, Scott Chesin, Forrest Solutions, and Gary Stanek.

Santana alleged that Forrest Solutions hired him in September 2023 and assigned him to work at Shook Hardy & Bacon as a Lead Office Service Associate. He described being required to perform tasks he considered menial or disturbing. He said he complained about his treatment and was terminated on February 28, 2025. He attributed the termination to retaliation.

Santana filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on March 24, 2025. The charge alleged discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Title VII but did not identify discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The agency issued him a notice of the right to sue and stated that it had ended its processing of the charge.

After Santana filed this case, Forrest Solutions and Gary Stanek moved to compel arbitration and pause the case while arbitration proceeded. Shook Hardy & Bacon, Scott Chesin, and Kelly Frazier moved to join that motion. Santana opposed arbitration and also raised claims under the New York State and New York City laws.

Court’s analysis

The court reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for cases filed without the normal filing fee. Under that requirement, the court must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, or seeks money from a defendant who is legally immune. The court also explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

The court concluded that the alleged workplace mistreatment did not, by itself, support claims under the employment-discrimination statutes. Those laws prohibit mistreatment because of protected characteristics, such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and prohibit retaliation against an employee who opposes conduct made unlawful by those laws. The court found that Santana’s allegations—including that he was terminated after applying for a new position and refusing a managing partner’s request—did not suggest that a protected characteristic motivated the defendants’ conduct. The court also found that Santana’s statements labeling the conduct discrimination, a hostile work environment, retaliation, and differential treatment were conclusory and insufficient.

Disposition

The court dismissed Santana’s complaint for failure to state a claim and granted him 30 days’ leave to replead, meaning he could file an amended complaint with additional factual allegations. The court stated that if he did not amend within the allowed time, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment.

The court terminated the pending motions to compel arbitration and to stay the action. It stated that if Santana amended his complaint within the allowed period, the defendants could re-file their arbitration motions and Santana could re-file his opposition. The order did not decide whether arbitration was required.