Hernandez v. Harvard Maintenance

Background

Leonel Hernandez brought a self-represented lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that his employer, Harvard Maintenance, discriminated against and retaliated against him. He alleged that he worked as a porter at Google offices in New York and that Harvard Maintenance fired him on October 24, 2017, after a coworker falsely accused him of eating on the job. A footnote states that Hernandez’s administrative charge alleged he was fired after drinking water while coworkers who also drank water did not receive the same consequence.

Hernandez filed a discrimination charge with the New York State Division of Human Rights on October 18, 2019. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued him a right-to-sue letter, but the letter was undated. Hernandez sought back pay and reinstatement.

Court’s analysis

Because Hernandez was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint and dismiss it if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must contain enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, those complaints still must provide a short and plain statement of facts showing entitlement to relief.

For a Title VII discrimination claim at the pleading stage, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the employer took adverse employment action and that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor. The court stated that Hernandez used an employment-discrimination form but did not identify the basis of the alleged discrimination. He also did not allege facts in the complaint showing discrimination based on a protected characteristic. The court therefore gave him an opportunity to provide those facts in an amended complaint.

The court noted that Hernandez filed his discrimination charge more than 300 days after his firing. It explained that, in New York, a charge generally must be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. But the court also stated that this charge-filing requirement is not jurisdictional and may be subject to waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling. The court did not resolve the timeliness issue.

Ruling and required amendment

The court granted Hernandez leave to amend his complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. Hernandez was directed, to the greatest extent possible, to identify relevant people and their titles; describe the relevant events and what each defendant did or failed to do; provide dates, times, and locations; explain how the conduct violated his rights and what injuries he suffered; and state the relief he seeks. He also had to provide addresses for named defendants.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Hernandez and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Hernandez failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order did not decide whether Hernandez ultimately proved discrimination or retaliation.