Smith v. St. Joseph's Medical Center
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:22-cv-05231
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Smith v. St. Joseph’s Medical Center, Judge Briccetti dismissed claims against “Human Resource” without prejudice and ordered service on two defendants.
Chantal Y. Smith’s claims against “Human Resource” were dismissed without prejudice; the case proceeded to service against St. Joseph’s Medical Center and Margrett Cusomano.
What happened
Chantal Y. Smith, representing herself, sued St. Joseph’s Medical Center, Margrett Cusomano, and “Human Resource,” alleging workplace discrimination based on race, color, religion, and gender. The court also treated her allegations as raising claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.
The court dismissed Smith’s claims against “Human Resource” because that defendant was not her employer, which is required for a Title VII claim. The court allowed the case to move forward for service purposes against St. Joseph’s Medical Center and Margrett Cusomano.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the clerk and U.S. Marshals Service to issue and serve the necessary papers on those two defendants. The court also dismissed the claims against “Human Resource” without prejudice and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for any appeal from this order.
The detailed version
- Smith v. St. Joseph's Medical Center · No. 7:22-cv-05231
- Vincent Briccetti
- Sept. 9, 2022
Background
Chantal Y. Smith brought this action without a lawyer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging that her employer discriminated against her because of her race, color, religion, and gender. Based on the factual allegations, the court also construed the complaint as asserting claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court had previously allowed Smith to proceed without prepaying filing fees.
Screening of the Complaint
Because Smith was proceeding without prepaying fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That law requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also noted that it must dismiss claims over which it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints liberally, the complaint still must provide enough factual information to make a claim legally plausible.
Claims Against “Human Resource”
Smith named “Human Resource” as a defendant. The court dismissed those claims because “Human Resource” was not Smith’s employer, and the court stated that the employer is the only proper defendant for a Title VII claim. The court dismissed Smith’s claims against “Human Resource” without prejudice under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The court noted that Margrett Cusomano, although not Smith’s employer, could potentially be liable under state law.
Service on the Remaining Defendants
Because Smith was allowed to proceed without prepaying fees, she could rely on the court and the U.S. Marshals Service to serve St. Joseph’s Medical Center and Margrett Cusomano. The court instructed the clerk to prepare service forms, issue summonses, and provide the necessary documents to the Marshals Service. The court stated that Smith should ask for more time if service was not completed within 90 days after the summonses were issued. It also required Smith to notify the court in writing if her address changed.
Disposition
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti dismissed without prejudice Smith’s claims against “Human Resource.” The court instructed the clerk to issue summonses and arrange service on St. Joseph’s Medical Center and Margrett Cusomano. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Smith permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from this order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.