Johnson v. Schuchert
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-03787
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 23
In Johnson v. Schuchert, Judge Swain dismissed Title VII claims against individual defendants, denied counsel, and allowed an amended complaint within 60 days.
Vandyke Johnson was required to amend his complaint within 60 days; the individual defendants were not proper defendants for the Title VII claims, and Johnson’s request for appointed counsel was denied without prejudice.
What happened
In Johnson v. Schuchert, Vandyke Johnson, representing himself, alleged that Columbia University-related defendants discriminated and retaliated against him because of his race and color in connection with temporary employment and a building-coordinator position. He relied on Title VII, Section 1981, and New York human-rights laws.
The court ruled that the individual defendants could not be sued under Title VII, because that law generally allows claims against employers and certain covered entities, not individual employees. The court also found that Johnson had not provided enough specific facts to plausibly show that race was the required cause of the alleged employment decisions under Section 1981. It allowed him 60 days to file a replacement amended complaint naming proper defendants and providing more facts.
Judge Swain denied Johnson’s request for free legal representation, while allowing him to renew that request later. The court also denied fee-free appeal status and warned that failure to amend on time could result in dismissal for failure to state a claim.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Schuchert · No. 1:22-cv-03787
- Katharine Parker
- July 26, 2022
Background
Vandyke Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that Paul J. Schuchert, Juan Alberto Hernandez, and Rene Casiano discriminated and retaliated against him because of his race and color. Johnson alleged that he was hired through Phyton Talent Agency as a temporary building assistant at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, sought a permanent building-coordinator position, complained to a union and human-resources personnel, was not hired for the permanent position, and was later terminated. He sought permanent employment and monetary damages.
The court had previously allowed Johnson to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It reviewed the complaint under the screening requirements for such cases, which require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also applied the requirement that a complaint provide enough factual detail to make the asserted claim plausible.
Title VII claims
The court dismissed Johnson’s Title VII claims against Schuchert, Hernandez, and Casiano because Title VII permits claims against an employer and other covered entities, such as an employment agency or labor organization, but does not impose liability on individual employees. The court did not decide whether Johnson’s temporary employment arrangement could make another entity a joint employer. It granted Johnson leave to amend so he could name the proper employer or other proper defendants.
The court also explained that a Title VII plaintiff generally must timely file a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an appropriate state or local agency and receive a notice allowing suit before filing in federal court. Because Johnson said that he had filed an agency charge but was still waiting for an interview slot, the court instructed him to complete the relevant exhaustion section of the amended complaint if he had since completed the required administrative process.
Section 1981 claims
Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts without racial discrimination. The court stated that an employment-discrimination claim under Section 1981 requires facts plausibly showing membership in a protected racial group, qualification for the position, an adverse employment action, and circumstances supporting an inference of discrimination. The plaintiff must also allege that, without race, he would not have lost the legally protected right.
The court found that Johnson had not supplied specific, non-conclusory facts plausibly showing that his race or color was the necessary cause of the defendants’ actions. It therefore concluded that his allegations did not support an inference that race was the required cause of the failure to hire him for the permanent position or of other employment decisions. The court allowed him to provide additional facts in an amended complaint.
Request for counsel
Johnson requested appointment of free legal counsel. The court considered the merits of the case, Johnson’s efforts to obtain a lawyer, and his ability to investigate and present the case without assistance. Because the case was too early for the court to assess its merits, it denied the request for counsel without prejudice to renewal later.
Disposition and amendment instructions
The court granted Johnson 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must repeat any facts or claims Johnson wants the court to consider. The court directed him to identify the relevant people and their roles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, describe his injuries, and specify the relief sought.
The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. It warned that if Johnson did not timely amend and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court denied his application for free legal representation and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith, denying fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.