Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP
- Alison Nathan
- 1:19-cv-10578
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP, Judge Nathan adopted a recommendation, partly granted Deloitte’s dismissal motion, and denied Shukla’s other motions.
Shukla’s claims against Deloitte were partly dismissed, while the motion to dismiss was denied in part as to the remaining claims. Shukla was not allowed to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, and his motion to vacate the earlier order was denied.
What happened
Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP involved a self-represented former employee’s federal and state discrimination, retaliation, and other claims against Deloitte. Deloitte asked to dismiss some claims, while Shukla asked to file a fourth amended complaint and to undo an earlier order.
A magistrate judge recommended partly granting and partly denying Deloitte’s motion and denying Shukla’s motions. The court found that the proposed new allegations were clearly baseless, and that further amendment would be futile, delayed the case, and prejudiced Deloitte. It also found no clear error in dismissing or recommending dismissal of the challenged discrimination, hostile-work-environment, emotional-distress, and negligence claims.
Judge Nathan overruled Shukla’s objections and adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted Deloitte’s motion to dismiss in part as to Counts Three, Four, Seven, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Fifteen, Sixteen, and Seventeen, denied it in part as to the remaining claims, denied leave to file a fourth amended complaint, denied the motion to vacate the earlier order, and denied fee-free appeal status.
The detailed version
- Shukla v. Deloitte Consulting LLP · No. 1:19-cv-10578
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 24, 2021
Background
Shukla, proceeding without a lawyer, brought federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims against Deloitte Consulting LLP, described as his former employer. Deloitte filed a partial motion to dismiss Shukla’s Third Amended Complaint. The court referred that motion to Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron for a report and recommendation.
While the dismissal motion was pending, Shukla sought permission to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. The proposed amendment added claims including fraud, conspiracy to commit crimes involving bodily injury, and witness tampering, and added defendants including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney General. Shukla also moved to vacate Judge Aaron’s June 15, 2020 order concerning the Second Amended Complaint.
Judge Aaron recommended granting Deloitte’s dismissal motion in part and denying it in part. He also denied Shukla’s motions to amend and to vacate the earlier order. Shukla objected to the recommendation. Because many of his objections repeated arguments already made, the court reviewed those portions for clear error, meaning it would reject the recommendation only if it found a definite mistake. The court reviewed the specific objection to the denial of amendment anew.
Denial of Leave to Amend
The court denied Shukla’s motion to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. It concluded that amendment would be futile because allegations concerning “BioChemical / Medical manipulation” were factually frivolous and clearly baseless. The court also found that additional amendment would cause undue delay and prejudice to Deloitte, noting that Deloitte had already responded to eight complaints, counting amendments filed in state court. The court further cited Shukla’s repeated failure to follow procedural rules concerning filing length and his excessive filings.
Objections to Dismissal of Claims
The court overruled Shukla’s objections to the recommended dismissal of several categories of claims:
- Gender discrimination: The court found no clear error in the conclusion that Shukla had not sufficiently alleged gender discrimination or plausibly alleged an adverse employment action in response to complaints of sexual harassment against him. - Gender-based hostile work environment: The court found no clear error in determining that Shukla had not plausibly alleged that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on gender. - Disability-based hostile work environment: The court agreed that the allegations did not provide a non-conclusory connection between the alleged hostile or disparaging acts and Shukla’s severe allergies or medical condition. - Race- or national-origin-based hostile work environment: The court found no clear error in concluding that the alleged isolated events did not amount to a hostile work environment. It also stated that an unauthorized sur-reply did not provide new allegations that would change that conclusion. - Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress: The court found no clear error in concluding that the Third Amended Complaint did not allege extreme and outrageous conduct by Deloitte. - Negligence: The court found no clear error in Judge Aaron’s decision concerning Shukla’s negligence claims.
Motion to Vacate
The court denied Shukla’s challenge to Judge Aaron’s denial of his motion to vacate the June 15, 2020 order. It found no clear error and stated that, even under a more searching review, the motion was moot because Shukla had already filed a Third Amended Complaint when he sought to challenge the earlier dismissal order.
Disposition
The court overruled Shukla’s objections and adopted Judge Aaron’s Report and Recommendation in full. Deloitte’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint was granted in part as to Counts Three, Four, Seven, Nine, Ten, Eleven, Fifteen, Sixteen, and Seventeen, and denied in part as to the remaining claims. Shukla’s motion for leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint was denied, and his motion to vacate Judge Aaron’s June 15, 2020 order was denied. The court also determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied fee-free appeal status for that appeal.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.