Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:19-cv-08796-CM
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau, Judge McMahon dismissed some claims, required amendment, and allowed Title VII claims against the agency to be repleaded.
Oluseyi Adeniji must amend his complaint within 60 days if he wishes to continue the remaining Title VII claims. The New York State and New York City claims and the Title VII claims against Hannah Zimmerman were dismissed, and Zimmerman was terminated from the action.
What happened
In Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau, Oluseyi Adeniji sued the Census Bureau and his supervisor, Hannah Zimmerman, under federal, New York State, and New York City laws. He alleged race discrimination and retaliation and sought damages.
Adeniji alleged that Zimmerman called him a “deplorable clerk,” that he was not promoted to several positions, and that the defendants harassed and retaliated against him. The court found that his complaint did not provide enough facts connecting an adverse employment action to his race or to opposition to unlawful discrimination.
Judge Colleen McMahon dismissed the New York State and New York City claims and the Title VII claims against Zimmerman, but granted Adeniji 60 days to file an amended complaint against the proper federal defendant. The court also directed that Zimmerman be terminated from the case.
The detailed version
- Adeniji v. US Department of Commerce/US Census Bureau · No. 1:19-cv-08796-CM
- Colleen McMahon
- Dec. 23, 2019
Background
Oluseyi Adeniji brought the action without a lawyer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. He named the United States Census Bureau and his immediate supervisor, Hannah Zimmerman, as defendants. He alleged race discrimination and retaliation and sought damages. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Adeniji alleged that on April 26, 2019, Zimmerman attempted to provoke him and called him a “deplorable clerk.” He stated that Zimmerman’s conduct was retaliatory for his not being promoted to five positions within the Census Bureau. He also alleged that the defendants failed to promote him, harassed him, and retaliated against him.
Court’s Analysis
Because Adeniji was proceeding without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. It also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.
The court dismissed the claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws because Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employees bringing race-discrimination and retaliation claims arising from federal employment. It also dismissed the Title VII claims against Zimmerman because Title VII does not impose individual liability on supervisors. The court directed the Clerk to terminate Zimmerman from the action.
As to the Title VII race-discrimination claim against the Census Bureau, the court held that Adeniji had not alleged enough facts to suggest that the Census Bureau took an adverse employment action because of his race. As to retaliation, the court held that he had not alleged enough facts to suggest that he suffered an adverse employment action because he opposed unlawful employment practices.
Disposition
The court dismissed Adeniji’s New York State and New York City claims and his Title VII claims against Zimmerman. It granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The court directed him to name Dr. Steven Dillingham, identified as the Director of the United States Census Bureau, as the sole defendant for his federal employee Title VII claims. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, and it could not reassert claims dismissed by the order.
The court stated that failure to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.