Smith v. City of New York

Background

Myra S. Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York. She alleged that the New York City Police Department, her employer, discriminated and retaliated against her. The complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Smith alleged that, after settling an earlier lawsuit concerning age and race discrimination, she experienced workplace retaliation. She described alleged harassment and interference with her use of a work room, denial of transfer requests, removal from email lists, failure to interview her for a position, and misconduct interviews. She also alleged that a supervisor said she was “too old and too ugly” to be transferred.

The City moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court converted the portion concerning equitable tolling—the possible extension of a filing deadline because extraordinary circumstances prevented a timely filing—into a motion for summary judgment and allowed the parties to submit additional evidence.

Federal claims and filing deadline

The court held that Smith’s Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims were untimely. Both laws required her to file suit within 90 days after receiving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice of her right to sue. The notice was dated September 14, 2020, and the court presumed that Smith received it three days later, making December 16, 2020, the filing deadline. Smith filed the complaint on December 30, 2020.

The court considered Smith’s argument that the date on the envelope, her handwritten timeline, and other materials showed that she received the notice later. Even using her asserted receipt date of September 18, 2020, the court found that the deadline would have been December 17, 2020, still before the December 30 filing date.

The court also rejected equitable tolling. It found that Smith had not shown both reasonable diligence and an extraordinary circumstance that prevented timely filing. The court considered her account of courthouse access problems, information from security personnel, illness, and a short hospital stay, but concluded that these facts did not justify extending the deadline. The court noted that pro se filing options, including email, mail, and a courthouse drop box, were available during the relevant period.

The opinion also states that Smith mentioned a retaliation claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act in her opposition papers. The court did not consider that claim because the complaint did not allege any disability.

State and city claims

After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Smith’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Supplemental jurisdiction is a federal court’s authority to hear related state-law claims. The court stated that Smith could seek to refile those claims in state court.

Leave to amend and final disposition

The court denied leave to amend because no new pleading could cure the untimely filing of the complaint. The court’s conclusion states that the motion to dismiss the federal claims was granted and that the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining claims. It also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.