Molina v. Harvard Maintenance

Background

Iris Molina filed this action without a lawyer against Harvard Maintenance. She proceeded without prepaying filing fees after the court had granted her request to do so. Molina invoked Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. She alleged that her former employer discriminated against her and retaliated against her because of her national origin, identified as Dominican. She sought money for alleged discrimination, health-related issues, and termination of her employment as retaliation for her national origin and complaints.

Molina referred to an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice allowing her to sue, but the court observed that the notice did not contain facts about her case.

Screening standard

Because Molina was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, the court was required to screen her complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss an application that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a legally valid claim, or seeks money from a defendant protected from such relief. The court also must dismiss when it lacks authority over the subject matter.

The court was required to read a self-represented person’s complaint generously, but the complaint still had to meet Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement showing why the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The court applied the rule that a complaint must include enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely possible.

Analysis

For a Title VII employment-discrimination claim at the pleading stage, the court stated that Molina had to plausibly allege that Harvard Maintenance took an adverse employment action against her and that her national origin was a motivating factor in that decision. A plaintiff may do this with facts directly showing discrimination or facts supporting a reasonable inference of discrimination.

The court found that Molina’s complaint did not meet that requirement. It contained conclusory assertions of discrimination but did not state what Harvard Maintenance did or failed to do, or explain how the alleged conduct supported an inference that national origin motivated the employer’s actions.

The court nevertheless concluded that Molina might be able to allege facts supporting national-origin discrimination. It therefore granted her leave to amend rather than dismissing the action at that point.

Order and amendment requirements

Molina was given 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts supporting each claim against each defendant and include any additional facts suggesting that national origin was a motivating factor.

To the greatest extent possible, the amended complaint had to identify relevant people and their titles; describe what each defendant did or failed to do; provide dates, times, and locations; explain how the conduct violated Molina’s federally protected rights; describe her injuries; and state the relief she wanted. The court emphasized that the amended complaint would completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. Any facts or claims Molina wanted to preserve therefore had to appear in the amended complaint.

The clerk was directed to mail Molina a copy of the order and record service on the docket. The amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, labeled “Amended Complaint,” and identify docket number 20-CV-10993 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Molina failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

Disposition

The court granted Molina leave to file an amended complaint. It did not dismiss the complaint in this order.