Thomas v. New York City Health and Hospital Corp.

Background

Tashima E. Thomas, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and its President and CEO, Dr. Mitchell Katz. She initially brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that HHC failed to discipline two coworkers after she complained about harassment, that the coworkers continued to harass her, and that HHC retaliated against her, including by ending her employment.

In an earlier order, Chief Judge Colleen McMahon found that the original complaint did not plausibly allege discrimination or retaliation under Title VII or the ADEA. The court explained that Thomas had not alleged facts connecting an adverse employment action to race, color, sex, religion, national origin, or age. It also held that, because Thomas was born in 1987 and was under 40, she was not covered by the ADEA. The court allowed her to amend to allege facts supporting a Title VII claim.

Thomas filed an amended complaint naming HHC, Katz, and coworkers Maricela Garcia and Bara Sene as defendants. She removed references to Title VII and the ADEA and relied on the New York State Constitution, New York State and City Human Rights Laws, and other state and city laws.

Allegations in the Amended Complaint

Thomas alleged that Garcia followed and antagonized her at work. She also alleged that Sene singled her out, called her into his office repeatedly, and gave her poor performance reviews after she reported him for suspected fraud. Thomas said that human-resources personnel did not provide an update on her complaint against Garcia and did not give her an opportunity to file a formal complaint against Sene.

She further alleged that Garcia twice pushed open a kitchen door in a way that nearly caused Thomas to spill hot coffee and burn herself. Thomas filed a police report. She alleged that her employment ended on September 6, 2019, the same day she received a notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission stating that she could sue. She characterized herself as a whistleblower and alleged a hostile work environment based on age, retaliation for filing the discrimination charge, and a state-law due-process violation based on the defendants’ failure to discipline Garcia and Sene.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that a liberal reading of the amended complaint did not reveal a viable federal claim. Thomas did not allege facts suggesting that the defendants took an adverse employment action because of her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as required for a Title VII claim, or under any other federal law. To the extent the amended complaint sought relief under Title VII or another federal law, the court dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over any remaining state-law claims. It did so because the federal claims—the claims giving the court its original jurisdiction—had been dismissed and the case was at an early stage.

The court also declined to give Thomas another opportunity to amend. It explained that she had already been allowed to amend and that the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured through another amendment.

Disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton dismissed the action for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate all other pending matters. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.