Katz v. New York Historical Society

Background

Robert Katz, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York Historical Society (NYHS), NYHS trustees and employees, and 31 additional individuals and entities. He alleged that NYHS discriminated against him in employment from 2007 to 2013. His allegations included that NYHS hired younger people, did not promote him to full-time employment, sought a document related to whistleblower protection, placed spyware on his work computer, took his email address, and interfered with his efforts to obtain other jobs. He sought money damages and orders concerning alleged computer intrusion, stalking, defamation, and harassment.

The court had previously allowed Katz to proceed without paying filing fees. Because of that status, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, inadequately pleaded, or barred by immunity. The court also had to dismiss claims if it lacked authority to hear them. Although courts read filings by people without lawyers generously, those filings still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim legally plausible.

Claims Against the NYHS Defendants

The court interpreted Katz’s complaint as raising claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against workers who are at least 40 years old because of their age. The court stated that the ADEA does not impose personal liability on individual defendants. It also explained that the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws can allow claims against individuals who aid or encourage an employer’s discrimination.

The court concluded that Katz had not alleged facts showing that he was entitled to relief. It therefore granted him leave to amend his complaint to provide facts supporting age-discrimination claims against the NYHS defendants. The order did not decide that those claims were true or false on their merits.

Claims Against the Remaining Defendants

The court dismissed without prejudice Katz’s claims against the 31 Remaining Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21. Rule 21 permits a court to sever claims even without finding improper joinder. The court found that Katz’s claims concerning those defendants did not relate to one another and did not appear related to his age-discrimination claims against the NYHS defendants.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Katz was granted 60 days from the date of the order to submit an amended complaint. The amended complaint could not exceed 20 pages, including the attached form, and had to replace rather than supplement the original complaint. The court directed Katz to provide addresses for named defendants and, as much as possible, identify relevant people and titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain how the conduct violated his federally protected rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought.

The court directed the Clerk to mail Katz the order and an employment-discrimination complaint form. No summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if Katz did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Judge Colleen McMahon also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Katz permission to appeal without paying the appellate filing fees.

Outcome

The order granted leave to amend the age-discrimination claims against the NYHS defendants, dismissed without prejudice the claims against the Remaining Defendants, and denied fee-free status for an appeal.