Gonzalez v. New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai

Background

Dominic Gonzalez brought this self-represented employment case against New York Eye and Ear Infirmary of Mount Sinai under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. He alleged that the defendant hired him as a housekeeper in November 2018, that his workload was too large for one person, and that a manager compared his work with that of a previous female employee.

Gonzalez alleged that he suffered a work-related back injury in February 2019 and missed seven weeks of work. When he returned, he said the defendant moved him from an evening shift to a morning shift, reduced his pay, and placed him under constant scrutiny. He also described a warning following a complaint about him and stated that, in May 2020, the defendant placed him on unpaid leave after a complaint concerning personal protective equipment procedures. He said the defendant told him he would be called back when the COVID-19 crisis was over. Gonzalez later filed a workers’ compensation claim and alleged that he was not fully compensated. He reported ongoing physical limitations and back pain and sought money damages.

Screening of the Claims

Because Gonzalez had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That provision requires dismissal of a qualifying complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally supportable claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from that relief. The court also noted that it must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, while reading self-represented pleadings liberally.

Title VII

Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating in employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The court dismissed Gonzalez’s Title VII claims for failure to state a claim because he did not allege discrimination based on one of those characteristics. Although he said his manager referred to a female employee who completed the same workload, he did not allege that the manager treated him differently because of sex. Instead, the allegations indicated that the manager expected both employees to complete the same duties.

Title IX

Title IX prohibits sex discrimination in an education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The court assumed, for purposes of its analysis, that the defendant received such funding. It nevertheless dismissed Gonzalez’s Title IX claims for failure to state a claim because, for the same reasons as his Title VII claims, he did not allege that the defendant treated him differently because of sex.

Americans with Disabilities Act

The court construed Gonzalez’s allegations as raising a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits employment discrimination against a qualified individual because of a disability. The court found that Gonzalez did not allege that he had a disability when he complained that he could not complete his work. His allegations attributed that problem to an excessive workload. He also did not allege that the pay reduction or shift change occurred because of a disability or because he took leave to recover from his back injury.

The court nevertheless granted Gonzalez leave to amend his ADA claims because he referred to a back injury, changed work conditions, and termination, and the court concluded that amendment might not be futile. The court also noted that it appeared Gonzalez had not exhausted the administrative process before filing suit. Generally, an employment-discrimination claimant must first file a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and receive a notice allowing a lawsuit. The court explained that this exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional and may be subject to waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling. It stated that Gonzalez could describe any exhaustion steps in an amended complaint.

Request for Counsel

Gonzalez requested that the court seek appointment of volunteer counsel. The court considered the merits of the case, his efforts to obtain a lawyer, and his ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because it was too early to assess the merits, the court denied the request without prejudice to renewal later.

Order and Effect

The court granted Gonzalez leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint had to state the relevant facts, identify the people involved, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how each defendant violated his rights, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. It would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court directed Gonzalez to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it an “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 20-CV-6822 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if he failed to comply and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also denied without prejudice his application for appointment of volunteer counsel.