Vazquez v. Jawonio

Background

Denise M. Vazquez, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, brought an action against Terry Parker, Jawonio, Steve Pelgram, Carol St. John, Gerthy Ritter, Stacie Davenport, Karen Genua, and Randi Roos Castro. She alleged employment discrimination and retaliation.

Vazquez alleged that she worked for Jawonio, which operates a residential care facility for people with disabilities. She reported unsafe conditions to the Justice Center, a New York State agency, on June 9, 2021, and emailed her managers about the issue on June 10, 2021. She alleged that coworkers harassed her and that she was fired on June 21, 2021, in retaliation for making those complaints.

The court had previously identified jurisdictional problems in Vazquez’s original complaint and allowed her to file an amended complaint. She filed the amended complaint on May 8, 2022.

Federal-Question Jurisdiction

The court explained that federal-question jurisdiction generally exists when a civil case arises under federal law. Vazquez identified Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act as the basis for federal jurisdiction.

The court concluded that she had not alleged a legally recognized ADA employment-discrimination claim. The ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against a qualified person because of that person’s disability. It also prohibits discrimination against an employee because the employee has a known relative or associate with a disability. Vazquez alleged that she was covered by the ADA because she complained about the treatment of Jawonio’s residents with disabilities. She did not allege that she was discriminated against because of her own disability or because of a relative or associate’s disability. The court therefore found that she had not established federal-question jurisdiction.

The court noted that New York Labor Law Section 740 may potentially prohibit retaliation for reporting conduct that creates a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, but the court did not rely on that state-law possibility as a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Diversity Jurisdiction

The court also considered diversity jurisdiction, which requires more than $75,000 in controversy and complete diversity between the parties. Complete diversity is absent if any plaintiff and any defendant are citizens of the same state.

Based on Vazquez’s submissions, the court concluded that Vazquez and Jawonio were both domiciled in New York. The court therefore found no complete diversity and held that Vazquez had not established diversity jurisdiction.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court concluded that further amendment would be futile because Vazquez had already been given an opportunity to correct the jurisdictional deficiencies, and her amended complaint did not cure them. The court dismissed the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice to refiling in state court.

The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the required fees. The Clerk was directed to close the case, and chambers was directed to mail Vazquez a copy of the order.