Williams v. Breaking Ground Housing Development Fund Corporation

Background

Derick Louis Williams, who was representing himself, sued Breaking Ground Housing Development Fund Corporation, identified as his former employer; Karen Warner, identified as a building manager; and Muhamet Islamovic, identified as a supervisor. Williams alleged that he was wrongfully terminated after being falsely accused of improperly touching a woman and violating Breaking Ground’s sexual-harassment policy. He alleged that the accusation harmed his ability to find other employment and sought severance pay and other damages.

The complaint included attachments concerning unemployment benefits and filings with the New York State Division of Human Rights. Those materials stated that Williams worked as a porter for Breaking Ground from December 20, 2021, through March 29, 2022, and was fired for violating the employer’s policy by touching an employee of a partner company. Williams also asserted that the accuser had made unwanted terms of endearment toward him and that Warner failed to address that conduct. The opinion noted that Williams did not allege facts suggesting that this lawsuit was based on his reported whistleblowing activity to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Court’s Analysis

Because Williams proceeded without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to review his complaint and dismiss it, or any part of it, if it was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or raised claims outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented pleadings are read liberally, but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

The court considered whether Williams’s allegations could support claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Those laws prohibit employment discrimination based on specified protected characteristics and prohibit retaliation for opposing unlawful discrimination. The court found that Williams did not allege facts showing that the defendants treated him differently because of a protected characteristic or retaliated against him for opposing discriminatory practices. His allegation that he was fired after a false sexual-harassment accusation did not, by itself, show that the alleged unfair treatment occurred because of a protected characteristic.

The court further explained that individuals cannot be held personally liable under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It stated that an individual who actually participated in discriminatory conduct might be personally liable under state law, including the New York State Human Rights Law, but Williams would need to allege facts explaining each individual defendant’s participation. The court reserved the question of whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims because it was not yet clear whether Williams could state a federal claim.

The court also explained that a person generally must complete specified administrative procedures before suing under Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act, including filing a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and obtaining a notice of the right to sue. The court stated that Williams had not explained whether he had completed those steps for potential Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, or Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims.

Disposition

The court granted Williams leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must be labeled “Amended Complaint,” include docket number 22-CV-8715 (LTS), and state the relevant facts, the actions of each defendant, the approximate dates and locations of events, Williams’s injuries, and the relief sought. It must completely replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims Williams wanted the court to consider from the original filing had to be repeated.

The order stated that if Williams did not amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal from the order.