Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater

Background

Betty M. Moncion filed a complaint against Stephen Sondheim Theater on February 4, 2022. She alleged that an unidentified company sent her to clean the theater in September 2018. After about two months, the company's boss told her that the theater's supervisor did not want her working there, and she was fired. Moncion asserted that she had done the work requested and therefore believed someone at the company or theater had discriminated against her. She did not identify the basis for the alleged discrimination. She also alleged that she was not paid all the money she was owed and sought $50,000 in damages.

The court had previously granted Moncion permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because she was proceeding without a lawyer, the court read her allegations liberally but still applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough facts to make a claim plausible.

Discrimination claim

The court treated Moncion's allegations as an employment-discrimination claim. It explained that she needed to allege facts showing both an adverse employment action and that a protected characteristic—such as race, color, sex, age, or disability—was a motivating factor in the employment decision. The court recognized that firing is an adverse employment action, but found that Moncion did not identify the basis for the alleged discrimination or provide facts suggesting that she was fired because of a protected characteristic. The court therefore found that the discrimination allegations did not state a plausible claim under the federal pleading rules.

Wage claim

The court treated Moncion's underpayment allegation as a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the federal law governing minimum wages and certain other wage and hour standards. The court found that the allegation was too vague to state such a claim. The complaint did not make clear whether Stephen Sondheim Theater or the unidentified company employed Moncion, and it did not allege facts showing that either entity failed to pay her the required federal minimum wage for work performed.

The court also noted that some claims might be outside the applicable filing deadline. It did not decide that issue at this stage, explaining that the timing problem was not clear enough from the complaint to resolve before Moncion had an opportunity to amend.

Ruling

The court granted Moncion leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide approximate dates and locations, describe her injuries, and state the relief sought. It will replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims she wants considered must be included again. The court warned that if she did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time.

Chief Judge Laura Taylor Swain also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. The order granted leave to amend; it did not determine whether Moncion ultimately could prove either claim.