Shine v. The New York City Department of Correction

Background

Towanda Shine brought a self-represented employment-discrimination action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the New York City Department of Correction. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying the filing fee. Shine also requested appointment of free legal counsel.

Shine alleged that she began working as a Correction Program Specialist at the Department of Correction’s Office of Constituent and Grievance Services on April 27, 2018. She described conflicts with her supervisor, coworkers, and bus drivers who transported employees around Rikers Island. Her allegations included criticism by her supervisor, a workplace-violence report filed by a correction officer, disputes about bus stops and transportation, and complaints filed by a bus driver. Shine alleged that she was directed to report to Human Resources on August 17, 2018, where she was told she was being terminated for reasons that were not disclosed.

Shine attached an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter and sought money damages for lost support income based on what she described as a false misconduct statement.

Screening of the Complaint

Because Shine was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint. The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible rather than merely possible.

Title VII prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment action because of an employee’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and also prohibits retaliation for opposing conduct made unlawful by those provisions. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must plausibly allege both an adverse employment action and that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in the decision.

The court found that Shine had not alleged that her supervisor or any other Department of Correction employee took adverse action against her because of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The court also found that she had not alleged facts suggesting that she had a disability or that the Department of Correction discriminated against her because of one.

Leave to Amend

The court granted Shine 60 days to file an amended complaint because she might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid Title VII claim. The court instructed her to include facts suggesting that her employer discriminated against her because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or disability. It stated that merely alleging membership in a protected class and termination would not be enough; she needed facts from which a factfinder could plausibly conclude that the protected characteristic was a reason, or part of the reason, for her firing.

The amended complaint would completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Shine wished to preserve had to be included in the amended filing. The court directed her to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-8162 (CM). No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that, if Shine failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Request for Counsel and Appeal Status

The court denied Shine’s motion for appointment of pro bono counsel without prejudice because it was too early to assess the merits of the action. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Shine’s ability to proceed without paying the appeal fee for purposes of an appeal.

Disposition

The court granted Shine leave to amend within 60 days. It denied the motion for counsel without prejudice. The order did not enter a final merits judgment on the discrimination allegations.