Barker v. Manhattan Parking Group LLC

Background

Denzil Barker, appearing without a lawyer, sued Manhattan Parking Group, LLC and Lawrence Lipman under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He alleged that his former employer did not provide him with a 1099 or W-2 form. Barker stated that he had worked as a porter beginning in 1980 and was later fired. He filed an age-discrimination case, which court records show settled in 2014. According to Barker, his attorney received one-third of the settlement, and the attorney sent him a 1099 form but not a W-2 form. Barker also alleged that he did not sign papers and did not authorize anyone to sign on his behalf.

The court had previously allowed Barker to proceed without prepaying filing fees. Under the federal statute governing such cases, the court was required to dismiss a complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought relief from an immune defendant, or raised claims outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but they still must provide enough facts to show a plausible entitlement to relief.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on Barker’s allegation that the defendants failed to provide a W-2. It explained that federal law and regulations require employers to issue certain information returns, including W-2 forms and 1099 forms. But, according to the court, an employer’s failure to provide a W-2 creates liability to the United States, not a private right allowing an individual to sue the employer. The Internal Revenue Service may assess penalties against an employer, but those penalties would benefit the IRS rather than the individual plaintiff.

The court also found no authority suggesting that money received as part of a settlement qualifies as remuneration for services performed by an employee, such that a W-2 would be required. The court added that, even if Barker should have received a W-2, he had no private right of action against his former employer for failing to provide one. The court noted that Barker did not allege damages or other harm caused by the missing W-2.

Ruling

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Barker’s complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court denied leave to amend because it determined that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Barker permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.