Alexander v. Private Protective Services, Inc.

Background

Jeriel Alexander, proceeding without a lawyer, brought one claim against Private Protective Services, Inc. (PPS) under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000a. He alleged that PPS discriminated against him by denying him access to an event at Pier 132 in Bronx, New York. His amended complaint sought $1.2 million in monetary damages.

PPS moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. PPS also requested attorney’s fees under Title II. Alexander moved to amend his complaint to add claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Civil Rights Law.

Magistrate Judge Stewart D. Aaron recommended granting PPS’s motion and granting in part and denying in part Alexander’s motion to amend. The parties filed objections, so Judge Oetken reviewed the challenged portions of the recommendation.

Title II Claim and Attorney’s Fees

The court held that individual plaintiffs cannot recover monetary damages under Title II; the available remedy is injunctive relief. Because Alexander’s Title II claim sought damages, the court granted PPS’s motion to dismiss.

The court also agreed that the damages claim was frivolous for purposes of awarding defense attorney’s fees. The court noted that Alexander had been told in two prior decisions, including an earlier round of this case, that Title II does not allow monetary damages. PPS’s counsel also had asked Alexander to voluntarily dismiss the claim before filing the motion. The court therefore awarded PPS reasonable attorney’s fees incurred only in connection with its motion to dismiss. The opinion does not state the amount of the award.

Proposed Additional Claims

The court denied leave to add a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 because Alexander did not allege a contract with PPS or another entity, or discrimination in an attempt to make a contract.

The court denied leave to add a New York State Human Rights Law claim because Alexander did not allege that PPS encouraged, approved, condoned, or knew about the alleged discriminatory conduct by its employee.

The court denied leave to add a claim under the New York Civil Rights Law because Alexander did not plead that he had served the required notice on the New York Attorney General.

The court allowed Alexander to add a New York City Human Rights Law claim. His proposed complaint alleged that a PPS security employee denied him access to a VH1 event at Pier 132 because of his race. The court concluded that these allegations sufficiently pleaded, at this early stage, that PPS was an agent of a place of public accommodation. The claim therefore survived the amendment stage.

Disposition

Judge Oetken adopted the Report and Recommendation in full and overruled the parties’ objections. The court granted PPS’s motion to dismiss and for attorney’s fees. It granted in part and denied in part Alexander’s motion to amend. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the two motions at issue.

Classification Note

This is classified as a procedural order because the order included a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and rulings on leave to amend, even though the court addressed the legal basis for the Title II dismissal.