Bell v. SL Green Realty Corp.

Background

Paula Bell filed the case against SL Green Realty Corp. and other defendants. The court had granted Bell permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and it found that her financial status had not changed, so she qualified as unable to afford counsel. On July 19, 2022, the court had granted in part and denied in part SL Green’s motion for summary judgment. The case was ready for trial on Bell’s remaining claim.

The remaining claim alleged that SL Green violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by discriminating against Bell because of her race when it fired her. The court stated that, assuming disputed facts in Bell’s favor and crediting her deposition testimony, alleged racist remarks and unequal enforcement of employment policies could establish an initial case of discrimination and support an argument that SL Green’s stated reasons were a pretext, meaning an explanation masking discrimination.

Legal Standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), a court may request a lawyer to represent a person who cannot afford one. In a civil case, the court cannot require the government to supply counsel or appoint a lawyer; it may only ask a volunteer lawyer to take the case. Courts therefore grant such requests sparingly because volunteer-lawyer time is limited.

The court applied factors from Hodge v. Police Officers. First, the person must show indigence, or inability to afford counsel. The claim must also appear likely to have substance. If those requirements are met, the court considers factors including the person’s ability to investigate facts and present the case, whether conflicting evidence will require questioning witnesses, the complexity of the legal issues, efforts to obtain counsel, and whether a lawyer would likely lead to a fairer result.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that Bell met the indigence requirement. It also found that her remaining claim was likely to be of substance because SL Green’s motion for summary judgment on that claim had already been denied. The court identified multiple disputes of material fact, including SL Green’s denial that the alleged racist remarks were made. It also identified difficult questions about discriminatory intent and pretext.

The court concluded that the other factors favored requesting volunteer counsel. Based on Bell’s summary-judgment filings, the court believed she might have difficulty assessing the parties’ positions for settlement and presenting the issues at trial. The court stated that representation could sharpen the issues, improve questioning of witnesses, and support more productive settlement discussions.

Disposition

The court requested pro bono, or unpaid volunteer, counsel for settlement negotiations, or for both settlement negotiations and trial if a trial became necessary. The request was not an appointment, and the court warned that no volunteer might agree to represent Bell. Bell remained responsible for proceeding without a lawyer unless she chose to retain a volunteer attorney.

The court ordered Bell to file any objections by August 19, 2022, adjourned the August 17, 2022 conference to a later date, and directed SL Green to inform Bell about the order. The court also certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees. This order concerns counsel and case administration rather than a final decision on the merits of Bell’s discrimination claim.