Chibuzor v. Corwin
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-09643
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chibuzor v. Corwin, Judge Furman dismissed the federal sex-discrimination claim with prejudice and the state-law claim without prejudice.
Anthony O. Chibuzor’s federal sex-discrimination claim under Title VII was dismissed with prejudice, while his New York State Human Rights Law claim was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in state court. The defendants were not required to defend claims that were dismissed.
What happened
In Chibuzor v. Corwin, Anthony O. Chibuzor, who was representing himself, alleged that the defendants unlawfully discriminated against him because of his sex when his employment ended. He brought a federal claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a claim under New York law.
The court had previously dismissed the federal claim but allowed Chibuzor to amend it. The court found that his second amended complaint still did not provide facts supporting an inference that sex discrimination influenced the termination decision. The court said that a person representing himself must still provide enough factual allegations to make a claim more than speculative.
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the Title VII claim with prejudice. The court declined to decide the New York claim in federal court and dismissed it without prejudice to refiling in state court. The court also denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee, after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Chibuzor v. Corwin · No. 1:20-cv-09643
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 8, 2021
Background
Anthony O. Chibuzor filed this employment-discrimination action without a lawyer. He alleged that the defendants discriminated against him because of his sex, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. The filing fee had been paid.
The court previously dismissed Chibuzor’s Title VII claim because his amended complaint did not allege facts suggesting that sex was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate his employment. Because he was representing himself, the court allowed him 60 days to amend. After receiving an extension, he filed a second amended complaint on February 22, 2021.
Court’s Analysis
The court held that the second amended complaint had the same fundamental defect as the earlier complaint. Chibuzor referred to “societal cries about ‘what happened to a lady’ or perceived ‘sexual harassment’” as possible influences on the termination decision, but the court found that he alleged no facts supporting those assertions.
The court explained that even a person representing himself must plead factual allegations sufficient to raise the claimed right to relief above the speculative level. Because Chibuzor did not do so, the court dismissed the Title VII claim with prejudice.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice as to the Title VII claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning authority to hear the related state-law claim after dismissing the federal claim, and dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law claim without prejudice to refiling in state court.
The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee. The Clerk of Court was directed to mail Chibuzor a copy of the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.