Dickerson v. BPP PCV Owners LLC

Background

Gloria D. Dickerson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued BPP PCV Owners LLC, the owner of her apartment complex. She alleged that on November 2, 2020, a security guard questioned her about a cabinet that another resident had discarded in a refuse room. The cabinet contained a valuable jewelry box. After reviewing surveillance footage, the guard believed Dickerson was the person who had removed the cabinet, demanded that she return the jewelry box, and called the police when she refused. Dickerson was not arrested. It was later determined that her neighbor’s caregiver had taken the cabinet and jewelry box.

Dickerson alleged that the incident was racial profiling. She brought claims under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, the Fair Housing Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also alleged retaliation based on earlier complaints about allegedly aggressive and discriminatory conduct by public-safety officers. BPP PCV Owners LLC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The court considered Dickerson’s complaint and factual allegations in her opposition papers, as allowed for a self-represented litigant at this stage.

Constitutional claims

The court treated Dickerson’s constitutional claims as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute that allows claims for constitutional violations by persons acting for the government. The court explained that the Constitution generally restricts government conduct, not purely private conduct. A private company’s conduct can qualify only when there is a sufficiently close connection between the company and the government, such as government coercion, joint activity, delegated public functions, or government control.

The court found that Dickerson alleged conduct by a security guard employed by BPP PCV Owners LLC, a private business, and did not allege facts showing that the guard was affiliated with law enforcement. The guard’s call to the police did not transform the guard’s conduct into government action. Dickerson also did not allege that the police officers discriminated against or harassed her. The court therefore concluded that she could not maintain her constitutional claims against BPP PCV Owners LLC.

Housing-discrimination claims

The court analyzed Dickerson’s Fair Housing Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law housing-discrimination claims together. It assumed for purposes of the motion that the Fair Housing Act could cover harassment of a resident after she rented or bought a dwelling. To proceed under the applicable framework, Dickerson needed to allege that she belonged to a protected group, suffered an adverse action, and had at least minimal factual support that the housing provider acted with discriminatory intent.

The court recognized that Dickerson alleged she was a Black woman, but found that her allegations did not provide minimal factual support for racial discrimination. She did not allege racially hostile comments by the defendant or identify similarly situated residents outside her protected group who were treated more favorably. The court also found that her allegations concerning sex, age, and disability were especially insufficient.

The court acknowledged that the security guard’s conduct, as alleged, was insensitive and upsetting. But it concluded that Dickerson had identified a possible nondiscriminatory explanation: the guard may have mistaken her for the person shown in surveillance footage because she matched the physical description, including race and other characteristics. The court held that race’s descriptive role, without additional facts suggesting racial hostility, was not enough to support a discrimination claim. It also found that comments by other residents and vague allegations about unidentified security guards did not adequately connect discriminatory conduct to BPP PCV Owners LLC or to the incident at issue.

Retaliation claim

For retaliation under the Fair Housing Act, Dickerson had to plausibly allege that she engaged in protected activity opposing unlawful housing discrimination, that BPP PCV Owners LLC knew about it, that the company later took adverse action, and that the earlier complaints helped cause the later action.

The court found no allegations establishing a causal connection. Dickerson did not say when her earlier complaints were made, preventing an inference based on timing. She also did not identify neighbors who had not complained of discrimination but received more favorable treatment in a comparable situation. The court dismissed the retaliation claim.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

The court explained that the Americans with Disabilities Act covers discrimination in areas including public services and public accommodations. Dickerson did not allege that BPP PCV Owners LLC was a public entity or that the apartment complex was a public accommodation covered by the statute. The court therefore dismissed the disability claim.

Disposition and amendment

The court granted BPP PCV Owners LLC’s motion to dismiss. It granted Dickerson leave to amend because it was conceivable that she could correct some deficiencies, including by alleging facts supporting an inference of discriminatory intent. The court directed that any amended complaint be filed within 30 days of the order. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with prejudice or without prejudice.

The opinion is signed by Ronnie Abrams, United States District Judge.