Thomas v. New York City Health and Hospital Corp.

Background

Tashima E. Thomas, representing herself, sued her former employer, New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. (HHC), and Dr. Mitchell Katz, identified as HHC’s President and CEO. She invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Thomas alleged that she complained that two coworkers had harassed her, but HHC took no disciplinary action against them. She further alleged that she then experienced retaliation and additional harassment. She reported the harassment to the New York City Police Department and filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. On the same day the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued her a Notice of Right to Sue, she was fired.

Court’s Analysis

Because Thomas had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen her complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that it had to read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still had to provide enough facts to make the claims plausible.

The court held that Thomas’s allegations did not plausibly show discrimination or retaliation under Title VII or the ADEA. She did not allege facts suggesting that the defendants took adverse employment action because of her race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or age. The court emphasized that describing mistreatment at work, without facts connecting that mistreatment to a protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct, is insufficient.

The court also held that Thomas could not state an ADEA claim because the opinion says she was born in 1987 and therefore was under 40. The ADEA’s protected age group covers individuals who are at least 40 years old.

The court noted that Title VII does not provide for individual liability. It stated that Thomas would need to assert valid state-law claims against Dr. Katz in any amended complaint.

Disposition

In Thomas v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., Judge Colleen McMahon granted Thomas leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims she wished to pursue. The court directed her to identify relevant people and events, provide dates and locations when possible, explain what each defendant did or failed to do, describe the alleged rights violations and injuries, state the relief sought, and provide addresses for the defendants.

The court did not issue a summons at that time. It warned that if Thomas did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.