Calvo v. Amalgamated Housing Corp.

Background

Brandon Calvo brought this employment-discrimination action without a lawyer against Amalgamated Housing Corp., identified in the complaint as his former employer. He alleged that he was wrongfully terminated and that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate an injury sustained while he was on duty. He sought unspecified monetary damages.

Calvo used the court’s employment-discrimination form but did not select boxes identifying the claims he intended to raise. He attached a May 26, 2019 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission letter acknowledging receipt of his charge under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although Calvo indicated on the form that he had exhausted administrative remedies and received a notice of the right to sue, the attached letter stated that the charge was pending.

The court had previously granted Calvo permission to proceed without paying filing fees.

Screening standard

Because Calvo was proceeding without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss it, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read generously, but they still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

Title VII and Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court explained that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual because of a disability in the terms and conditions of employment and also addresses reasonable accommodations.

The court held that Calvo’s allegations were insufficient to state claims under either statute. He did not allege facts suggesting that Amalgamated Housing Corp. took adverse employment action against him because of a protected characteristic. He also did not describe the nature of his injury or allege facts suggesting that any adverse action occurred because of that injury.

The court directed that, if Calvo amended his complaint, he must allege facts showing or suggesting that the employer took adverse employment action against him because of an impermissible factor. The court also directed him to complete the portion of the form concerning the steps taken to exhaust administrative remedies and the status of his charge.

Order

The court granted Calvo leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint had to replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, and it had to include all facts and claims Calvo wished to maintain. The court instructed him, to the greatest extent possible, to identify relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations, explain how his rights were violated, describe his injuries, and state the relief he sought.

The Clerk was directed to mail the order to Calvo and note service on the docket. No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Calvo failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order itself granted leave to amend; it did not state that the complaint was dismissed at that stage.