Duarte v. Highland Light Steam laundry Company

Background

Sony Marisol Ortega Duarte brought the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court had previously given her permission either to refile her Spanish-language complaint with an English translation or to submit an amended complaint in English. She submitted an English amended complaint.

On an employment-discrimination form, Duarte checked a box asserting a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law and identified retaliation as the alleged discriminatory conduct. She did not check boxes asserting claims under federal antidiscrimination statutes. In the facts section, she wrote only that she had been absent from work because of her children and that her workplace was large, with many employees who could take over her work. She identified April 2, 2019, as the date of the alleged acts and indicated that the conduct was continuing. She also said she did not remember when she filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and indicated that the agency had not issued a notice of the right to sue.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint filed by a person proceeding without paying the filing fee if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or does not fall within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented pleadings liberally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 still requires a short and plain statement of facts showing entitlement to relief. The court must determine whether the alleged facts make liability plausible, rather than merely possible.

The court held that Duarte’s bare allegations did not satisfy Rule 8 because they did not identify what the defendant did or failed to do that violated her rights. The court also interpreted the references to absences because of her children as a possible attempt to assert a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act. That law can protect qualifying leave for certain family-related reasons and can prohibit interference with or retaliation for exercising those rights. The court found that Duarte had not said whether she requested or was approved for such leave, or what the employer did or failed to do that violated the Act. The court noted that the Act does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under it.

Disposition and amendment instructions

Judge Louis L. Stanton granted Duarte leave to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint must completely replace, rather than supplement, the existing amended complaint. It must include the relevant people’s names and titles; a description of relevant events, including what each defendant did or failed to do, approximate dates and times, and general locations; the injuries suffered; and the relief sought.

The second amended complaint had to be submitted to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days of the order, be labeled “Second Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 21-CV-0990 (LLS). The court directed the Clerk to mail the order to Duarte and stated that no summons would issue at that time. The court warned that if Duarte failed to comply within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the action would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.