Foy v. The State of New York New York State Attorney General

Background

Jahn K. Foy, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the State of New York. The opinion states that Foy is a Black woman who lives in Brooklyn and worked for the New York State Unified Court System in the Office of Court Administration from February 2003 until approximately February 18, 2020.

Foy alleged that she attended workplace meetings about being late for work, including a meeting on December 10, 2019. The next day, a Unified Court System officer recommended terminating her employment. Justice George J. Silver, acting as the hearing officer in Foy’s workplace-discipline matter, sent Foy a February 18, 2020 letter notifying her that her employment had been terminated.

Foy later pursued proceedings in New York state courts. Her state-court proceeding under Article 78 was decided on February 3, 2022; the state court ruled that her claims were barred by the applicable deadline and, alternatively, lacked merit. A separate action in the New York Court of Claims was dismissed as untimely.

Foy filed this federal action on August 30, 2021, and later filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint identified claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. It did not select the form’s option for a claim under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination statute.

Motions and legal standards

The State moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal when the federal court lacks authority to hear the case, and Rule 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legally valid claim. Foy filed a motion for summary judgment, but the court denied that motion as premature on April 19, 2022. The court also stated that it would not consider a later filing by Foy styled as a reply to the State’s reply because the applicable local rules did not allow that filing and Foy had not requested permission to submit it.

Subject-matter jurisdiction and sovereign immunity

The court held that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The Eleventh Amendment generally prevents federal courts from hearing suits against a state that has not consented to be sued, unless Congress has validly removed that protection. The court explained that this protection also covers state entities and instrumentalities that function as arms of the state, including the New York State Unified Court System.

The court applied that rule because Foy asserted only state-law claims against New York. It found that New York had not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and that neither the New York State Human Rights Law nor the New York City Human Rights Law removed that immunity. The court also noted that an exception for prospective relief against a state official did not apply to the suit as pleaded.

Possible Title VII claim

The court noted that Congress has removed state sovereign immunity for employment-discrimination claims under Title VII. However, Foy expressly chose not to pursue a Title VII claim in her amended complaint. The court stated that even if it construed her pleadings as asserting such a claim, dismissal would still be required because she conceded that she had never received a right-to-sue letter. The court explained that a person generally must complete specified administrative steps before filing a Title VII action in federal court, including obtaining that letter.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the State’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the amended complaint in its entirety because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the open motions and the case, and directed that a copy of the order be mailed to Foy. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.