Colon v. St. John's Riverside Hospital
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-05846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Colon v. St. John's Riverside Hospital, Judge McMahon dismissed Colon’s employment-discrimination case for failing to state a claim.
Francisco Colon, Jr.’s employment-discrimination and retaliation action against St. John’s Riverside Hospital was dismissed; the court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
Colon v. St. John's Riverside Hospital involved Francisco Colon, Jr.’s claims that his employer discriminated against him and retaliated against him under federal employment laws.
The court had previously allowed Colon, who was representing himself, to file an amended complaint after finding that his original complaint lacked enough facts. Colon’s filing consisted of a cover page and employment-related documents, including memos complaining about discrimination and retaliation and a disputed competency rating.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the action because the filing still did not contain enough facts to support a plausible discrimination or retaliation claim. The court also denied Colon permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Colon v. St. John's Riverside Hospital · No. 1:19-cv-05846
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 20, 2019
Background
Francisco Colon, Jr. sued St. John’s Riverside Hospital, asserting employment-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Colon appeared without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees.
In an October 15, 2019 order, the court explained the factual allegations needed to state plausible claims under those laws. Because the original complaint did not include sufficient facts, the court gave Colon permission to file an amended complaint.
On November 5, 2019, Colon filed a document labeled “Amended Complaint.” It contained a cover page listing employment-related documents and the documents themselves. They included memoranda Colon sent to his employer complaining about alleged discrimination and retaliation, as well as an employee competency rating that Colon had signed but disputed.
Court’s Analysis
The court considered whether the documents, even if read broadly as the allegations in an amended complaint, contained enough factual allegations to state a plausible claim for employment discrimination or retaliation under Title VII or § 1981. The court concluded that they did not.
Disposition
The court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Colon permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.