Smith v. Mount Sinai Hospital, St. Luke

Background

Rita R. Smith, who was representing herself, alleged that her employer falsely terminated her in 2016. According to the complaint, on January 14, 2016, Smith was falsely accused of “shoving” Shante Choice, a coworker at Mt. Sinai Hospital/St. Luke’s. Smith alleged that the Labor Relations office later ordered her fired and that she was required to sign a “last chance agreement,” while Choice was not. Smith believed she was treated differently because Choice had family members who also worked at the hospital. Smith also alleged that Choice was later fired for harassing another employee. Smith sought back pay and other money damages.

Federal Claims

The court treated the complaint as asserting an employment-discrimination claim under federal law. It explained that federal employment-discrimination laws prohibit adverse treatment because of characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age, and also prohibit retaliation against an employee who opposed unlawful discrimination.

The court concluded that Smith did not allege facts showing that the hospital treated her differently because of a protected characteristic. She also did not allege that she was retaliated against after opposing discriminatory conduct. The allegation that she was fired after being falsely accused of pushing a coworker, without more, did not state a federal employment-discrimination claim under the pleading standards.

State-Law Claims and Jurisdiction

The court stated that Smith could assert state-law claims only if she provided facts establishing diversity jurisdiction. That requires the parties to be citizens of different states and the amount in dispute to exceed $75,000. The court noted that Smith resides in North Carolina and that the hospital is located in New York, so diversity of citizenship appeared possible. But the complaint did not make clear what state-law claim Smith intended to bring or whether the amount in dispute met the required threshold.

Order

Because Smith was self-represented and might be able to provide additional facts supporting a valid claim, the court granted her leave to amend. She had 60 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts, people involved, events, injuries, and requested relief that Smith wanted the court to consider. The court directed her to label it “Amended Complaint” and include docket number 22-CV-4260 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time.

The court stated that if Smith failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal.