Echavarria v. ABM Industry Groups LLC

Background

Myrian Echavarria brought the case without a lawyer against ABM Industry Group LLC and her former supervisor, Sam Haxhas. She invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court also understood her complaint to raise claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.

Echavarria alleged that ABM discriminated against her based on race, national origin, religion, sex, and age. She said that Haxhas supervised her work, gave her a disciplinary warning after a coworker accused her of bullying, and later required her to provide a doctor’s note for an assigned holiday shift. When Echavarria said, “Oh my god,” she alleged that Haxhas yelled at her and told her not to “name god.” After she failed to bring the doctor’s note on the first day requested, she brought it the next day and was suspended the day after that.

Echavarria alleged that Haxhas told her the suspension was for bullying coworkers and speaking ill of them. She later complained to her union. She also filed a complaint with the New York State Department of Human Rights and received a notice of the right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in September 2020.

She alleged that Haxhas and three coworkers had plotted against her and that Haxhas wanted to replace her with someone younger, particularly someone Albanian. She stated that the person who took over her position was white and in her twenties, and that she believed, without certainty, that this person was related to Haxhas. Echavarria sought money damages, an order requiring ABM to rehire her, and an order requiring reasonable accommodation of her religion.

Legal standard

Because Echavarria had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court was required to screen the complaint. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the court had to dismiss any portion that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also had to dismiss a case over which it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court explained that it must read a self-represented litigant’s complaint generously, but the complaint still had to provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Legal conclusions alone were not enough.

Analysis

The court held that Echavarria’s allegations were insufficient to state discrimination claims under Title VII, § 1981, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Although she alleged that coworkers conspired with Haxhas to get her fired, she did not allege facts showing that the decision to target or terminate her was motivated by race, national origin, religion, age, or sex.

The court found that Echavarria’s belief that she was replaced by a white employee was speculative. It also noted that the coworkers she accused of conspiring against her were Hispanic women, one of whom was Colombian and continued working for the defendant. The court concluded that the allegation about Haxhas’s religious comment, even if offensive, did not show that Haxhas took an adverse employment action because of Echavarria’s religion.

The court separately held that Echavarria’s age claim was inadequate because her only age-related allegation was that a coworker called her “old.” She did not allege facts showing that her employer acted against her because of her age.

Disposition and amendment

The court did not dismiss the complaint at that time. Because Echavarria might be able to allege additional facts supporting a valid claim, the court granted her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint rather than supplement it and had to include the facts and claims she wished to pursue.

The court directed Echavarria to identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how the conduct violated her rights, describe her injuries, and state the relief she sought. The court also directed her to provide addresses for named defendants. If she failed to comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.