Larkem v. French Institute Alliance Francaise

Background

Nasser Larkem brought the action without a lawyer against his employer, the French Institute Alliance Française, and three individuals who worked there: Ellen Casey, Marie-Monique Steckel, and Sarah Zafrani-Sidi. He alleged discrimination based on race, described as North African; religion, described as Islam; and national origin, described as French of North African origin. He asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

Larkem’s complaint alleged that Casey retaliated against him by taking money from his paycheck and requiring administrative and follow-up work that was not paid. He also alleged that Casey acted after a payment order concerning a fine, that Zafrani-Sidi knew about the removal of money but took no action, and that Steckel ordered him to work outside his assigned duties under the pretext of remote learning. He further alleged that Steckel threatened retaliation during a 2018 meeting. Larkem had filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a notice allowing him to sue.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Title VII and Section 1981 prohibit employment discrimination based on specified protected characteristics and also protect employees from retaliation for opposing unlawful discrimination. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action and facts suggesting that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in the decision.

The court held that Larkem failed to state a claim under either Title VII or Section 1981. Although he identified his race, religion, and national origin in the complaint, the court found that he did not allege facts suggesting that any of those characteristics played a role in the defendants’ treatment of him. The court did not state that it was dismissing the complaint at this stage; instead, it granted leave to amend because Larkem was representing himself.

Order and effect

The court granted Larkem leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must identify the relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it happened, describe his injuries, and state the relief sought. It must include all facts and claims he wants considered because it will completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court directed Larkem to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 21-CV-2795 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The order states that if Larkem did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.