Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-01025
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater, Judge Swain dismissed Betty Moncion’s complaint for insufficient facts and denied further amendment.
Betty Moncion and Stephen Sondheim Theater; the order dismissed Moncion’s complaint and denied her further permission to amend.
What happened
In Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater, Betty Moncion alleged that an unidentified company sent her to clean the theater, that she was fired after about two months, and that she was not fully paid. She claimed discrimination but did not identify its basis or the employer.
The court had previously instructed Moncion to provide facts supporting employment discrimination based on a protected characteristic and an unpaid-minimum-wage claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Her amended complaint did not provide those facts or explain how much money she was owed, so the court found that it failed to state a claim.
Judge Swain dismissed the complaint, denied Moncion further permission to amend, and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment. The court also denied her permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, finding that any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Moncion v. Stephen Sondheim Theater · No. 1:22-cv-01025
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
Betty Moncion proceeded without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, a status commonly called proceeding in forma pauperis. She alleged that, in September 2018, an unidentified company sent her to clean the Stephen Sondheim Theater. After about two months, the company's boss told her that the theater's supervisor no longer wanted her working there, and she was fired. Moncion stated that she had done the work requested and therefore believed that discrimination was the only explanation. She did not identify the basis of the alleged discrimination. She also alleged that she was not paid all the money she was owed and sought $50,000 in damages.
Earlier amendment order
The court had previously construed the original complaint as asserting an employment-discrimination claim and a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a federal law governing matters including minimum wages. The court directed Moncion to amend the complaint to identify the employer, provide facts suggesting discrimination based on a protected characteristic such as race, national origin, or age, and provide facts showing that the employer failed to pay the federal minimum wage for work performed.
Moncion filed an amended complaint, but the court found that it did not comply with those instructions. She again did not identify the employer, state the basis for the alleged discrimination, allege that she was fired because of a protected characteristic, or provide additional facts about the amount she was owed or paid. The court concluded that the amended allegations were substantially similar to the original allegations and failed to state a claim.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which requires dismissal of an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim. It also declined to give Moncion another opportunity to amend, explaining that she had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and that further amendment could not cure them. The order did not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore denied in forma pauperis status for purposes of an appeal. It directed the Clerk of Court to issue judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.