Johnson El v. NYC Administration Children Services

Background

Jeremiah Siddique Johnson El, a former Special Officer employed by the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) from August 1, 2005, through July 6, 2016, proceeded without a lawyer in this action. He sued ACS, former supervisors, and one other ACS employee. He alleged employment discrimination based on his Muslim religion 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. His allegations included denial of a promotion and religious accommodations, different employment terms and duties, problems with leave time, harassment, threats, vandalism, suspensions, and retaliation for complaints to ACS’s internal equal-employment office and the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

After his resignation, Johnson El filed complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 4, 2016. The state agency investigated and determined that there was no probable cause to believe ACS had engaged in the alleged discriminatory practices. Defendants moved for summary judgment, a procedure that asks whether the evidence presents a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. Johnson El submitted an affidavit and other documents but did not file a formal response to defendants’ factual statement. The court independently reviewed the record and interpreted his submissions liberally because he was proceeding without a lawyer.

Rulings on the Claims

Title VII claim. The court dismissed the Title VII claim as untimely. A Title VII lawsuit must be filed within 90 days after the plaintiff receives the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice of the right to sue. The notice was dated January 28, 2019. Applying the usual presumption that a mailed document is received three days after mailing, the court presumed Johnson El received it on January 31, 2019. His deadline was therefore May 1, 2019, but he filed the complaint on May 13, 2019.

The court found that Johnson El’s evidence did not rebut the three-day presumption. He described general problems with mail delivery and could not remember when he received the notice, but the court found insufficient evidence that this particular notice had been delayed long enough to make the lawsuit timely. The court also found no basis for extending the deadline under equitable tolling, a doctrine that can sometimes excuse a late filing. The court found no evidence that Johnson El had delayed filing because he had been tricked or misled.

New York State and New York City claims. The court held that the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law claims were barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine. Under those laws, a person who brings the same claims, or claims based on the same underlying events, before the New York State Division of Human Rights generally cannot later bring them in court, unless the agency dismissed them for administrative inconvenience. The court explained that this bar deprives the court of power to hear the claims.

The court found that the state-agency complaint and the federal lawsuit concerned the same alleged conduct, including bullying by supervisors, denial of a promotion and religious accommodation, suspension and discipline, different job duties, denial of leave, harassment, and retaliation. The federal complaint added detail, additional defendants, and a New York City law theory, but the court found no new discriminatory conduct that avoided the bar. Because the state agency had investigated and issued a no-probable-cause determination, the court dismissed the state and city claims on this basis. The court stated that any challenge to the state agency’s ruling had to be brought in New York state court.

Other requests and additional defendant

Johnson El’s opposition appeared to request permission to add claims for fraud, due process violations, perjury, and emotional distress, including claims based partly on events after his ACS employment. The court had previously stricken amended complaints asserting these claims as untimely. To the extent Johnson El again requested permission to amend, the court denied that request. Because the initial complaint’s claims were dismissed, the court denied his discovery requests as moot.

Defendant Horatio Lynch could not be served despite additional court-authorized attempts. The court dismissed Lynch without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The court’s conclusion stated that defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted, the action was closed, and the opinion did not address the merits of the new claims Johnson El sought to add in his later submissions. The court stated that the opinion did not prevent him from bringing those new claims in a new lawsuit in an appropriate state or federal court.