Asuncion v. Bard College

Background

John A. Asuncion, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged that, while working at Bard College, another employee sexually harassed him and created a hostile work environment. He further alleged that no action was taken after he complained and that he was later fired in retaliation.

Asuncion named Colleen Murphy Alexander, Kimberly Alexander, and Jim Brudvig as defendants. He had named Bard College as a respondent in a complaint filed with the New York State Human Rights Commission, but he did not name Bard College as a defendant in this federal case. He also did not attach a notice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission allowing him to sue, although he alleged that he received one on February 28, 2020.

Screening and legal standards

Because Asuncion was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. The court must dismiss such a complaint, or part of it, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents a matter over which the court lacks authority. The court must read a self-represented litigant’s allegations liberally, but the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.

Court’s analysis

The court held that individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII. It therefore explained that, if Asuncion wished to proceed under Title VII, he needed to name Bard College as a defendant. The court instructed him to attach the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice allowing suit to his amended complaint.

The court noted that individuals may be liable under state or city human-rights laws if they were personally involved in the discrimination or helped carry it out. It also stated that, if Asuncion did not intend to pursue a Title VII claim, the court could decline to hear the state-law claims against the individual defendants. The order did not resolve whether those state-law claims were legally sufficient.

Disposition

The court granted Asuncion leave to file an amended complaint that complied with the stated requirements. He had to file it within 60 days, label it an “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-4061. The court directed the Clerk to mail him the order and note service on the docket. No summons issued at that time.

The court stated that failure to file a proper amended complaint within the permitted period, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. Judge Nelson S. Roman also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.