Stewart v. Nadhan Inc.

Background

Selene Stewart filed a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law addressing employment discrimination. She filed the complaint representing herself. The defendants were Nadhan Inc., doing business as Orchard Post-Acute Care and formerly doing business as Windsor House Convalescent Hospital, and Prema Thekkek.

Stewart alleged that she was a former nurse who worked at Windsor House until she was fired in 2006 after a patient died. She claimed she was not responsible for the patient’s death and that she experienced racial discrimination and retaliation. The complaint also discussed the loss of her nursing license, unsuccessful efforts to have it reinstated, and proceedings before the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians.

The opinion states that Stewart had filed an earlier lawsuit against the same defendants concerning her termination and alleged racial discrimination. That earlier matter was settled. The opinion also discusses a later filing in the closed case concerning alleged noncompliance with the settlement agreement; a magistrate judge had instructed Stewart that any challenge to the settlement should be brought as a new action in the appropriate forum, likely state court.

Defendants’ motion and legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a complaint must include enough factual allegations to make a claim plausible, rather than relying only on labels, conclusions, or speculation. The court also considered whether the complaint established any basis for federal jurisdiction, meaning the court’s legal power to hear the dispute.

Stewart did not file an opposition by the original deadline. After the court ordered her to explain why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute, she filed an opposition and exhibits. The defendants filed a reply.

Discussion

The court concluded that Stewart had failed to state a claim and had not shown a basis for federal jurisdiction. To the extent she challenged her 2006 termination, the court held that the claim was time-barred and had been resolved in the earlier federal lawsuit. The court stated that Stewart’s receipt of a right-to-sue letter in 2021 did not make the employment claims timely, and that she had not worked for the defendants since 2006.

The court further stated that an alleged breach of the earlier settlement agreement was a contract matter that did not belong in federal court. It likewise characterized claims such as libel, slander, and defamation as state-law claims that did not create federal jurisdiction. The court said that complaints concerning the loss of Stewart’s nursing license and efforts to reinstate it had to be pursued through administrative proceedings and/or the state court system.

Disposition

The court GRANTED the defendants’ motion to dismiss and DISMISSED the case without leave to amend. It denied leave to amend because Stewart’s filings showed that she was attempting to relitigate the earlier lawsuit and related proceedings, and the court found no indication that she could allege a federal claim against her former employer. The opinion does not add a with-prejudice or without-prejudice designation to the dismissal.