Barker v. Women In Need, Inc.

Background

Akasha Tania Barker, appearing without a lawyer, sued Women In Need, Inc. (WIN), individuals associated with WIN, St. Vincent St. Joseph Medical Center and one of its social workers, the New York City Office of Mental Health, the New York City Department of Homeless Services, the New York City Human Resources Administration, and an individual associated with the Office of Mental Health. Barker alleged that defendants discriminated against her based on her gender identity while she lived in a WIN shelter and later housing from April 2016 through April 2019. She also alleged misgendering, disclosure of personal information, unsafe placements, threats, physical attacks, and sexual assaults. She sought money damages.

Because Barker had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court screened her complaint under the statute requiring dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and that complaints by people without lawyers are read liberally but still must provide enough facts to make relief legally plausible.

Claims the Court Rejected

The court dismissed the claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Barker alleged disability discrimination based on her gender, but the court stated that the Americans with Disabilities Act excludes gender identity disorder from its definition of disability. Barker did not allege another disability that would bring her within either statute.

The court dismissed the Title VI claims because Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in a federally funded program, and Barker did not allege facts showing that type of discrimination. The court also dismissed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act claims because that statute and its privacy rules do not provide a private right of action that an individual can bring in court.

The court treated Barker’s claims against government actors as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law allowing suits against people acting under state authority for violations of federal rights. The court held that there is no constitutional right to a well-run shelter system, adequate housing, or placement in a particular type of shelter. It also held that alleged violations of state law, or a government agency’s failure to make private entities follow state law, do not by themselves establish a § 1983 claim. The court dismissed the following government defendants from the complaint: Brenda Barrett, the Department of Homeless Services, the Office of Mental Health, and the Human Resources Administration. The opinion earlier identifies the individual as Brenda Bennett, creating an inconsistency in the name.

As to the WIN and St. Vincent defendants, the court explained that § 1983 generally requires conduct fairly attributable to the state. It held that Barker did not allege facts showing that these private defendants’ conduct was attributable to New York City. The court therefore concluded that Barker did not state a § 1983 claim against those defendants.

Fair Housing Act Claims and Leave to Amend

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on, among other things, sex and disability. Its disability provisions also require reasonable accommodations when necessary to give a person with a disability an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The court stated that some courts have recognized discrimination based on transgender identity as discrimination because of sex under the Fair Housing Act.

The court found that Barker’s allegations did not clearly state whether defendants discriminated against her because of her gender identity or failed to accommodate a disability. Because she was representing herself, the court granted her leave to amend the Fair Housing Act and Fair Housing Amendments Act claims. If she claimed gender-identity discrimination, she had to provide facts supporting that claim. If she claimed failure to accommodate a disability, she had to describe the disability, explain why an accommodation was needed, and state how defendants failed to provide it.

The court did not make a final ruling on any state-law claims. It explained that if the federal claims were dismissed, it could decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state-law claims. The opinion stated that Barker should notify the court if she chose to file those claims in state court.

Order

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Barker leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include all facts and claims she wished to pursue. It had to identify each defendant, describe each relevant event and the defendant’s conduct, provide dates and locations when possible, explain the injuries and legal violations, and state the requested relief. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Barker failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.