Nouinou v. Guterres

Background

Fatimazohra Nouinou proceeded without a lawyer and without prepaying filing fees. She filed a second amended complaint after the court directed her to address problems in her original complaint. Nouinou alleged that she met Peter Smith while they both worked for the United Nations and later received a six-month temporary position with the United Nations Office of Counter-Terrorism beginning March 1, 2018. Her contract stated that it would expire on October 23, 2018, without notice and did not create an expectation of renewal.

Nouinou alleged that Smith questioned her United States work permit and asylum application, acted to prevent or end her recruitment, harassed and intimidated her, interfered with her access to United Nations facilities and equipment, and caused a notice identifying her as Moroccan to be distributed within the United Nations. She also alleged that Smith spoke with her husband at the restaurant where he worked and organized a holiday party there. Nouinou sought damages, reinstatement to United Nations employment, and retraction of the notice.

Before filing this action, Nouinou pursued a dispute concerning the nonrenewal of her temporary contract in United Nations tribunals. The United Nations Dispute Tribunal rejected her application, and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal affirmed that decision and dismissed her appeal.

Legal standard

Because Nouinou filed without prepaying fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally valid claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without lawyers liberally, those complaints must still provide enough factual allegations to make relief plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Employment-discrimination claims

Nouinou asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 against Smith. The court dismissed the Title VII claim because Title VII does not impose liability on individual defendants. The court also concluded that allowing Nouinou to amend the complaint to sue the United Nations as her employer would be futile because the United Nations has immunity from suit, including for the employment-discrimination claims described in the complaint.

The court explained that § 1981 can impose liability on an individual, but concluded that Smith had functional immunity. Under that immunity, United Nations employees are protected from lawsuits concerning acts performed in their official capacity and within their functions, unless the United Nations waives the immunity. The court determined that Nouinou’s allegations about her employment and other United Nations matters concerned acts Smith performed in his official capacity. It therefore dismissed the § 1981 claims under the statute governing screening of complaints filed without prepaying fees. The court also stated that, even without immunity, Nouinou had not plausibly alleged employment discrimination based on ancestry or ethnic origin.

Claims involving Nouinou’s husband and other state-law claims

The court considered whether it could hear Nouinou’s state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. It noted that the allegations concerning Smith’s interactions with Nouinou’s husband were the only allegations that might involve conduct outside Nouinou’s employment. The court also noted that Nouinou’s allegations concerning citizenship and domicile might not adequately establish diversity jurisdiction, but it nevertheless considered whether those allegations stated a claim.

The court held that Nouinou could not bring claims on behalf of her husband because a person who is not a lawyer cannot represent another person in court. To the extent Nouinou asserted her own claim concerning Smith’s interaction with her husband, she did not allege what Smith said. The court therefore could not determine whether the conduct occurred in Smith’s official capacity and was protected by functional immunity. In addition, the allegations did not plausibly state a defamation or slander claim because Nouinou did not identify a false or defamatory statement or provide the necessary details about the statement. The allegation that Smith organized a holiday party at the restaurant also did not plausibly show a violation of Nouinou’s rights. The court dismissed the state-law claims for failure to state a claim and stated that functional immunity would also apply to actions connected with Smith’s United Nations employment.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court recognized that complaints filed without lawyers are generally dismissed with an opportunity to amend when a valid claim might be stated. It declined to grant further leave here because Nouinou had already amended her complaint twice and further amendment appeared futile. The court dismissed the second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).