Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP

Background

Ashu Shukla filed this action without a lawyer against Deloitte Consulting LLP, the Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the FBI Assistant Director. The filing fee had been paid. Shukla alleged that Deloitte discriminated and retaliated against him based on disability, national origin, race, and gender during his employment and after his November 5, 2018 termination. He also alleged that Deloitte interfered with his efforts to obtain new employment and harassed him through conduct including tracking, account hacking, offensive messages, loud noises, vibrations, and coordination with local police.

The complaint asserted claims under what Shukla called federal common law, state tort law, city and state human-rights laws, and federal criminal laws. It sought damages and injunctive relief. The complaint contained no factual allegations against the government defendants.

The court also described Shukla’s earlier related employment-discrimination case against Deloitte, which was pending in the same district under docket number 19-CV-10578. In that case, after a partial ruling on Deloitte’s motion to dismiss, Shukla filed a third amended complaint; Deloitte’s answer was due August 7, 2020.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that it could dismiss a complaint that was frivolous or that fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, even though Shukla had paid the filing fee. A claim is frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. The court also said it was required to read filings by people without lawyers liberally and to interpret them as raising the strongest claims they suggest.

The court treated the complaint as asserting two categories of claims. First, it identified employment-discrimination, retaliation, career-transition-service, and interference-with-new-employment claims against Deloitte. Because those claims were substantially similar to claims covering the same period in the pending related case against the same employer, the court found that litigating them again would serve no useful purpose.

Second, the court considered Shukla’s allegations that Deloitte harassed him outside the employment and career-transition context. Even giving special consideration to a filing by a person without a lawyer, the court found those allegations irrational and found no legal theory on which Shukla could rely. It therefore concluded that the harassment claims were frivolous. The court said the defects could not be cured by amendment and declined to give leave to amend those claims.

The court separately dismissed the claims against the government agencies and officials. It found no allegation showing government involvement in the events described. The court added that even allegations of government involvement would be frivolous in this case and that claims against the government were barred by sovereign immunity, which generally protects the United States and its agencies from suit unless immunity has been waived.

Disposition

The court dismissed any employment-discrimination claims against Deloitte without prejudice to the matter pending under docket number 19-CV-10578. It dismissed all other claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). The opinion does not add a prejudice designation to the dismissal of the harassment claims or the government-related claims.

The court denied as moot Shukla’s motion for permission to file electronically and directed the clerk to terminate that motion. It 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.