Shine v. The New York City Department of Correction

Background

Towanda Shine, a former employee of the New York City Department of Correction, brought the action without a lawyer against the City of New York. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging a hostile work environment, discriminatory termination, and retaliation. She alleged that colleagues treated her badly and fabricated two misconduct reports that led to her termination.

The City moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Administrative-exhaustion requirement

Before bringing Title VII or ADA discrimination claims in federal court, a plaintiff generally must first file a sufficiently specific discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an authorized state agency. The charge must provide enough information for the agency to identify and investigate the specific discrimination claims. A federal claim generally must also be reasonably related to the allegations in that charge.

Court’s analysis

Shine’s charge was filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights. She said she was discriminated against because of a “predisposing genetic characteristic,” which she described as her demeanor, hair, and education. She also alleged retaliation for filing a complaint in the past. The facts accompanying the charge said that she was terminated because her attitude was unprofessional, that colleagues viewed her as unprofessional and unqualified, that colleagues discussed her hair, and that she complained to superior staff about one week before her termination.

The court found that the charge did not say Shine had a disability or describe disability-related discrimination. It therefore did not exhaust her ADA claims. The court also found that the charge did not identify whether the alleged Title VII discrimination involved race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The court concluded that references to genetic characteristics, demeanor, hair, and education could not fairly be read as identifying one of those protected traits. The hostile-work-environment and discriminatory-termination claims under Title VII and the ADA were therefore unexhausted and had to be dismissed.

The court separately considered retaliation. It found that the retaliation described in the charge was not reasonably related to the retaliation claim Shine pursued in court. Her court pleadings did not mention the pre-termination complaint to superior staff. In opposing dismissal, she instead referred to frustration with pre-employment processes, including difficulty setting up direct-deposit payments. The court noted that this grievance was not included in the discrimination charge and did not constitute protected activity—opposition to a discriminatory workplace practice—required for a Title VII or ADA retaliation claim. The court therefore found the retaliation claim unexhausted and, independently, without merit.

Disposition

Judge James Oetken granted the City’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear related state-law claims, over any remaining claims under New York State or New York City law. The Clerk was directed to mail Shine a copy of the opinion, close the specified motions, and close the case.