Nouinou v. Guterres

Background

Fatimazehna Nouinou brought this self-represented action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged that United Nations officials took adverse employment actions against her because she was a “Spaniard from the international zone of Tangier” and because she was a woman. She also alleged harassment, defamation, retaliation, failure to promote, and termination or non-renewal of employment.

Nouinou sued Antonio Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General; Ben Swanson, identified as Director of the Investigations Division at the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services; and Peter Dennis Reade Smith. She sought criminal prosecution of the defendants and $7 million in damages. She stated that she had not pursued administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and had not received a notice of the right to sue.

Because Nouinou was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court screened her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. That screening law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read generously but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Rulings

Claims against Guterres. The court held that Guterres, as the current United Nations Secretary-General, had absolute immunity from suit under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. It dismissed Nouinou’s claims against him and directed her not to include those claims in an amended complaint because doing so would be futile.

Requested criminal prosecution. The court dismissed as frivolous Nouinou’s request that Swanson be criminally indicted. It explained that a private individual cannot prosecute criminal charges because the decision whether to prosecute belongs to prosecutors.

Title VII claims. The court dismissed Nouinou’s Title VII claims against Swanson and Smith for failure to state a claim. Title VII provides for liability against employers, not individual defendants. The court also stated that an official-capacity claim against Swanson would effectively be a claim against the United Nations and would face the United Nations’ immunity.

Section 1981 claims against Smith. The court found that Nouinou had not clearly alleged whether Smith discriminated against her because of ancestry, ethnic characteristics, or alienage—characteristics that § 1981 can cover—or merely because of her place of origin, which § 1981 does not cover. The court also found that her allegation of sex-based retaliation could not support a § 1981 claim because § 1981 does not cover sex discrimination. The court therefore concluded that her § 1981 allegations against Smith failed to state a claim.

Section 1981 claims against Swanson. The court concluded that any § 1981 claim based on Swanson’s elimination of Nouinou’s position in 2015 appeared time-barred, even assuming the four-year limitations period applied. It also stated that Nouinou appeared to allege that Swanson acted because of her opposition to United Nations corruption, rather than because of a characteristic protected by § 1981. The allegations therefore failed to state a § 1981 claim against Swanson.

State-law claims and jurisdiction. The court assumed without deciding that Nouinou’s state-law claims were part of the same case or controversy as her federal claims. Because the federal claims failed at this stage, the court stated that it was inclined to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court also found that Nouinou had not pleaded facts showing complete diversity of citizenship because she had not alleged the citizenship of Swanson or Smith. It invited her to include facts addressing diversity jurisdiction if she filed an amended complaint.

Leave to amend and disposition

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Nouinou leave to file an amended complaint asserting claims against Smith and/or Swanson. The amended complaint had to state a federal claim or show that the court had diversity jurisdiction. The court directed Nouinou not to replead claims against Guterres or her Title VII claims. It required the amended complaint to provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts, identify what each defendant did, and include relevant dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief.

The clerk was directed to mail the order to Nouinou. She had 60 days from the date of the order to submit an amended complaint through the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit. No summons would issue at that time. The order stated that if she failed to amend within the permitted period without showing good cause, the federal claims would be dismissed for failure to state a claim and the court would decline supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.