Tavarez v. 32BJ

Background

Orfelina Tavarez sued Triangle Services, identified as her former employer, and Local 32BJ, her union. She challenged the loss of her job after an arbitrator found that Triangle Services had just cause to suspend and terminate her in 2015. The arbitration award stated that Tavarez had threatened a coworker with serious bodily harm with a knife. Local 32BJ represented her in the arbitration.

Tavarez originally alleged that she was unhappy with the decision, had been falsely accused, and lost her job without a reason. The court previously interpreted those allegations as potentially raising a hybrid claim under federal labor law and a claim that Triangle Services discriminated against her. The court gave her opportunities to amend, explaining that she needed to provide facts supporting those claims.

Second Amended Complaint

Tavarez’s second amended complaint used an employment-discrimination form. She checked boxes asserting Title VII discrimination based on race, identifying her race as Hispanic, and alleging that a supervisor retaliated against her after she complained of sexual harassment. She alleged that the supervisor worked with another coworker to have her fired. She again stated that she had not filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or another government agency, although documents attached to her filings showed that she had filed a charge with the New York State Division of Human Rights.

Court’s Analysis

Because Tavarez was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss the complaint if it was frivolous, sought relief from an immune defendant, or failed to state a claim. The court also had to read her self-represented filings liberally, but explained that even self-represented pleadings must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

The court concluded that the second amended complaint did not state a claim. Although Tavarez checked the race-discrimination box, she alleged no facts concerning race. She made no allegations against Local 32BJ. Her retaliation allegations were also insufficient because they were unsupported by plausible facts. The court noted that the arbitration materials indicated that Branch Manager Peter Lusha made the decision to suspend her after a client banned her from the premises, while Tavarez did not allege that the supervisor she accused of retaliation participated in the suspension or termination decision or that the actual decision-maker acted with bias.

The court further stated that, because the suspension and termination occurred in 2015, any discrimination claim appeared to be untimely. The opinion also noted uncertainty about which earlier proceedings Tavarez meant when she referred to a court decision in the defendants’ favor.

Disposition

The court dismissed Tavarez’s second amended complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepayment of fees. The opinion does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.