Newton v. Bezos

Background

Melissa M. Newton brought this action without a lawyer under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged that her employer, Whole Foods, discriminated against her because of her disability. She identified her disabilities as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia and named Jeff Bezos as the only defendant. She sought damages.

Newton alleged that, on December 7, 2019, she had a personal dispute with a head cashier concerning scheduled breaks. She said her breaks were repeatedly delayed or changed and that she was becoming an outcast and experiencing discrimination and retaliation. On the day she was fired, she was directed upstairs before her scheduled break, sent downstairs to perform a task outside her usual responsibilities, confronted by two team leaders, and told to punch out and go home. She was later told she was on administrative leave. The opinion also states that Newton's application to proceed without paying filing fees identified December 9, 2020, as her last date of employment, although that date is after the events and order described in the opinion.

Newton stated that she filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and attached a December 27, 2019, notice of the right to sue. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees.

Legal standard

When a person proceeds without paying filing fees, the court must screen the complaint and dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, seeks money from a legally immune defendant, or falls outside the court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court must read a complaint filed by a person without a lawyer generously, but the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement showing a plausible entitlement to relief. A plausible claim requires enough factual detail to support a reasonable inference that the defendant is responsible for the alleged misconduct; bare legal conclusions are not enough.

For an ADA employment-discrimination claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the employer took an adverse employment action and that disability was a motivating factor in that decision. A failure-to-accommodate claim requires allegations that the plaintiff had a covered disability, the employer knew about it, the plaintiff could perform the job with a reasonable accommodation, and the employer refused a requested accommodation.

Court's analysis

The court concluded that Newton's allegations appeared to describe a firing after a conflict with a coworker over breaks. Without additional facts, those allegations did not show that she was fired because of her disability. The court also found that she did not allege that her employer refused an accommodation she requested because of her disability. The complaint therefore failed to state an ADA claim against the employer as written.

The court explained that the proper defendant for an ADA employment claim is the employer. Newton's materials identified that employer as “Whole Foods Market.” Individuals are not subject to suit under the ADA. Under the New York State Human Rights Law, however, an individual may be personally liable if the individual actually participated in the conduct underlying the discrimination claim. Thus, Jeff Bezos would be a proper defendant under state law only if he personally participated in that conduct.

Disposition and amendment instructions

The court granted Newton leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. It must state the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant, identify relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how the conduct violated Newton's rights, describe her injuries, identify the relief requested, and provide addresses for named defendants. The court directed her to label the filing “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 20-CV-3993(LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if Newton did not comply within the deadline and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.