McKenzie v. Big Apple Training Inc.

Background

Kellyann A. McKenzie brought this self-represented employment-discrimination action against Big Apple Training Inc. She invoked the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. She alleged discrimination based on her age, religion, and national origin.

McKenzie alleged that, in spring 2021, Jackie Bowen, identified as the 70-year-old Jamaican director of Big Apple Training’s school in the Bronx, interviewed and hired her as a phlebotomy and electrocardiogram instructor. McKenzie taught several courses. She alleged that Bowen later took over some classes after stating that students were complaining about McKenzie, and that McKenzie was eventually not offered another course to teach.

Court’s analysis

The court dismissed McKenzie’s ADEA claim for failure to state a claim. The ADEA protects individuals who are at least 40 years old. McKenzie alleged that she was born in 1986 and did not allege facts supporting an inference that any employment action was because of her age.

The court also concluded that the complaint did not state a Title VII national-origin discrimination claim. McKenzie alleged that she was discriminated against because her national origin was American and Bowen was Jamaican. The court found that her general allegations that Jamaican people have a vendetta against Americans were too vague to support a plausible inference that Bowen stopped offering her courses because of her national origin.

The court likewise concluded that the complaint did not state a Title VII religious-discrimination claim. McKenzie alleged that Bowen’s son called her about allowing a failing student to take an examination, which she viewed as an attempt to compromise her religious beliefs. The court found that this allegation did not show that McKenzie’s Seventh-day Adventist religion motivated the decision not to continue offering her courses. The court also noted that it was unclear whether she had exhausted this claim in administrative proceedings, but stated that exhaustion was not a pleading requirement.

Leave to amend and disposition

Because McKenzie was representing herself and might be able to state a valid Title VII claim by alleging additional facts, the court granted her 60 days’ leave to amend. The amended complaint was required to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and to include the facts and claims she wanted the court to consider. The court directed her to identify relevant people, describe the events and their approximate dates and locations, explain her injuries, and state the relief sought.

The court ordered that no answer was required at that time. It stated that if McKenzie failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.