Mercado v. Mount Pleasant Cottage School Union Free School District

Background

Yolanda Mercado brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She represented herself. Mercado alleged that she was a Hispanic, Puerto Rican woman who worked as a teacher’s aide and senior supervisor at the school district’s campus. She claimed that the defendants discriminated against her because of race and national origin and retaliated against her after she agreed to be named as a witness in Maria Alvarado’s state and federal employment-discrimination proceedings against the school district and others.

Mercado alleged that she was denied at least three promotions to school safety monitor, even though she had more seniority than the people who received those positions. She also alleged that the school district terminated her on January 3, 2019, based on an untrue accusation that she had lied to Principal Jessica Harris about bringing students to a classroom. Mercado alleged that the termination was retaliation for her role as a witness for Alvarado.

Motion to Dismiss Standards

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning its legal authority to hear a claim. Rule 12(b)(6) asks whether the complaint alleges enough facts to make a claim legally plausible. Because Mercado represented herself, the court read her filings liberally and considered consistent factual allegations in her opposition papers.

New York City Human Rights Law Claims

The defendants argued that the New York City Human Rights Law did not apply because the alleged adverse employment actions did not occur in New York City. The court agreed that the alleged actions occurred at the school in Pleasantville, Westchester County, and that Mercado did not allege that any discriminatory or retaliatory conduct occurred within New York City. The court therefore dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claims without prejudice.

New York State Human Rights Law Claims

The defendants argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over Mercado’s New York State Human Rights Law claims because she had previously filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights involving the same conduct and defendants. The state agency dismissed that complaint after finding no probable cause to believe that the defendants had discriminated against Mercado or retaliated against her.

The court held that the state-law election-of-remedies provision generally prevents a person who has filed a claim with the state agency from bringing the same claim in court, unless the agency dismissal was based on administrative convenience, untimeliness, or annulment of the election of remedies. Because none of those exceptions applied, the court concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law claims without prejudice.

Title VII Claims Against Individual Defendants

The court held that Title VII does not impose individual liability on supervisors or other individual agents. It therefore dismissed all of Mercado’s Title VII claims against Stephen Beovich, Jessica Harris, and Daria Weitmann with prejudice.

Title VII Race and National-Origin Discrimination Claims

The court treated Mercado’s Title VII discrimination claims as claims that the school district failed to promote her to school safety monitor. Although Mercado alleged that she belonged to a protected class, the court found that she did not expressly allege that she applied for or was qualified for the position. Even assuming that she applied on the three occasions when she was passed over, she did not allege facts showing that the people who received the positions had similar qualifications or otherwise provide minimal support for an inference that race or national origin motivated the decisions.

The court dismissed the Title VII race- and national-origin-discrimination claims without prejudice.

Title VII Retaliation Claim

The court denied the motion to dismiss Mercado’s Title VII retaliation claim. Title VII protects an employee who participates in an investigation or proceeding involving alleged employment discrimination. The defendants argued that merely agreeing to be named as a witness in another employee’s case was not enough to qualify as protected activity. The court rejected that argument, relying on a Second Circuit decision holding that agreeing to be identified as a potential witness can qualify as participation protected by Title VII.

The court also found that Mercado plausibly alleged a connection between her protected activity and her termination. The school district knew that she had agreed to serve as a witness, and the court considered the pending federal case involving Alvarado, including the possibility that Mercado would later testify. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court concluded that Mercado’s allegations were sufficient to allow discovery to develop additional facts about causation.

Disposition and Amendment

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It granted the motion as to the New York City Human Rights Law claims, the New York State Human Rights Law claims, all Title VII claims against Beovich, Harris, and Weitmann, and the Title VII race- and national-origin-discrimination claims. It denied the motion as to Mercado’s Title VII retaliation claim.

The court dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claims, New York State Human Rights Law claims, and Title VII race- and national-origin-discrimination claims without prejudice. It dismissed the Title VII claims against the individual defendants with prejudice. The court granted Mercado leave to file a second amended complaint as to claims not dismissed with prejudice, with a filing deadline of June 27, 2022.