Olsson v. ABM Taxi Dispatch LaGuardia Airport

Background

John A. Olsson sued ABM Aviation, Inc., which he incorrectly named as “ABM Taxi Dispatch LaGuardia Airport.” He proceeded without a lawyer. The opinion describes claims for wrongful termination under state law and race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Olsson alleged that he was terminated after workplace disputes with coworkers and supervisors. He also alleged that a coworker made a racial comment, that coworkers used a racial slur, and that an ABM supervisor made disparaging statements about him during later job searches. Olsson filed supplemental letters in December 2019 that the court treated as a request for permission to amend his complaint.

Earlier Rulings and Proposed Amendment

In a September 18, 2019 order, the court granted ABM summary judgment on Olsson’s wrongful-termination claim and granted ABM’s motion to dismiss his Title VII, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the New York City Human Rights Law claims and allowed Olsson to seek permission to amend his Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law claims. Any amendment request was due October 15, 2019, and the court required a proposed amended complaint to be attached.

Olsson did not file a motion by the deadline. His December 2 and December 20 letters were filed later and did not include a proposed amended complaint. ABM argued that the submissions were improper and that any amendment would be futile, meaning the amended claims still could not survive dismissal.

Court’s Analysis

The court first held that the amendment request was procedurally deficient because it was late and did not include the required proposed amended complaint. Because Olsson was without a lawyer, however, the court also considered the substance of the proposed claims.

For race discrimination, the court concluded that Olsson had not alleged facts plausibly showing that ABM terminated him because of his race. The coworker’s racial comment was not made by someone whom Olsson alleged had authority to hire or fire employees, and the court found that the comment had little value in showing that ABM acted with discriminatory intent.

For the hostile-work-environment claim, the court found that the single racial comment about Olsson’s racial group was not enough to show an objectively hostile or abusive workplace. The court also concluded that coworkers’ repeated use of a racial slur, as described by Olsson, was not directed at him or at his race and therefore did not support his claim.

For retaliation, the court explained that Olsson needed to allege that he engaged in protected activity, meaning that he opposed conduct made unlawful by the employment-discrimination laws. The court found that his complaints concerned coworkers’ job performance and general misconduct, not unlawful discrimination. The court also found no allegation connecting the supervisor’s statements to retaliation for opposing race discrimination.

Disposition

The court denied Olsson’s motion for leave to amend. It directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The order does not grant leave to file another amended complaint.