Quirino v. The New Jewish Home
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:19-cv-05778
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Quirino v. The New Jewish Home, Judge Engelmayer dismissed most discrimination claims, allowing amendment of a federal age-based failure-to-promote claim.
The ruling affected Editha Lopez Quirino’s age- and sex-discrimination claims against The New Jewish Home, Maia Santarina, and Jenifer Tutone. It dismissed the New York State and New York City claims without leave to amend, dismissed the federal sex-discrimination claims and most federal age-discrimination claims with prejudice, and allowed amendment of the federal age-discrimination failure-to-promote claim.
What happened
Editha Lopez Quirino sued The New Jewish Home, Maia Santarina, and Jenifer Tutone, alleging age and sex discrimination. The defendants asked the court to dismiss the case under federal rules governing subject-matter jurisdiction and legally insufficient complaints.
A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Quirino’s New York State and New York City claims, her federal sex-discrimination claims, and most of her federal age-discrimination claims. The recommendation allowed her to amend her federal age-based failure-to-promote claim. Quirino did not object to the recommendation, while the defendants objected to the recommended finding about service of a required notice.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted the recommendation with modifications. He dismissed the New York State and New York City claims without leave to amend, dismissed the federal sex-discrimination claims with prejudice, and dismissed the federal age-discrimination claims with prejudice except for the failure-to-promote claim, which Quirino was allowed to amend. He also found that the defendants had complied with the required notice rule.
The detailed version
- Quirino v. The New Jewish Home · No. 1:19-cv-05778
- Paul Engelmayer
- Mar. 22, 2021
Background
Editha Lopez Quirino filed the case pro se, meaning without a lawyer, and alleged that The New Jewish Home, Maia Santarina, and Jenifer Tutone discriminated against her based on age and sex. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Quirino was represented by counsel by the time the court considered the recommendation.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman recommended dismissing with prejudice Quirino’s claims under New York State and New York City law under Rule 12(b)(1). The recommendation also called for dismissing with prejudice her federal sex-discrimination claims and her federal age-discrimination claims under Rule 12(b)(6), except for the federal age-discrimination failure-to-promote claim. As to that claim, the recommendation allowed Quirino an opportunity to amend her complaint.
The defendants objected to the recommendation to the extent it suggested they had not properly served Quirino with the notice required by Local Rule 12.1. Quirino did not object or respond. The court reviewed the unobjected-to portions for clear error and found no facial error in the recommendation.
Ruling
The court adopted the Report and Recommendation with two modifications. First, it held that because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the New York State and New York City claims, it could not dismiss those claims with prejudice. It therefore dismissed those claims without leave to amend. Second, after reviewing the defendants’ objection, it found that the defendants had adequately complied with Local Rule 12.1.
The court otherwise adopted the recommendation. It dismissed Quirino’s federal claims with prejudice because, even when read generously in light of her earlier pro se status, they failed to state a claim, except that it allowed her to amend the federal age-discrimination failure-to-promote claim. The amended complaint was due April 19, 2021. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the defendants’ pending motion, and the case remained under Judge Freeman’s pretrial supervision.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.