Ray v. Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP

Background

Olijah T. Ray, who was representing himself, brought the case under federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that he was wrongfully terminated from employment at PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP because of his race and age. The court construed his amended complaint as asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Ray alleged that he was treated unfairly, was not given enough work, was subjected to biased treatment, was denied performance reviews, and was discharged. He also alleged that Kristen Fyock and Scott Migliori were involved in his termination and that he was later denied an interview. The complaint named PricewaterhouseCoopers employees and individuals associated with other organizations, but it did not describe conduct by most of those individuals. Ray sought money damages and reinstatement. He had received a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Court’s analysis

Because Ray had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under the federal screening statute. That statute requires dismissal of an action that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must still provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

The court concluded that the alleged facts did not support an inference that any defendant acted because of Ray’s race or age. Ray did not identify his race or age, and he did not provide specific facts suggesting that either characteristic caused the alleged mistreatment or termination. The court also found that the complaint did not explain what most individual defendants did or failed to do. Although Ray appeared to allege that Fyock and Migliori fired him, he did not allege facts showing that they acted discriminatorily.

The court explained that individuals generally cannot be held personally liable under Title VII. It also noted that an individual may be liable under § 1981 if personally involved in the alleged violation, but found that Ray had not adequately alleged such involvement. Because the federal claims were dismissed at this stage, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over the New York claims. The court stated that it could consider state-law claims later if a second amended complaint stated a federal claim and included supporting facts.

Rulings and instructions

The court granted Ray leave to file a second amended complaint within 60 days. The new complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint. The court instructed Ray to identify the individuals allegedly involved, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. The court warned that if he did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the amended complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court denied without prejudice Ray’s motion for permission to file electronically because he had not shown that he completed the required electronic-filing introduction course. No summons would issue at that time.