Nanakumo v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation

Background

Ebipamone N. Nanakumo brought this self-represented lawsuit against New York City Health + Hospitals Corp. (H+H), Mayor Eric Adams, Governor Kathy Hochul, President Joseph Biden, and a group of people and entities identified in the complaint. He asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, alleging employment discrimination based on religion.

Nanakumo alleged that he had worked as a medical doctor at Lincoln Hospital in the Bronx beginning in 2006. He requested a medical exemption from H+H's COVID-19 vaccination requirement because he believed vaccination violated his Christian faith. According to the opinion, H+H denied the request and directed him to take unpaid leave. He later filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, but the opinion states that the status of those administrative proceedings was unclear.

The complaint also challenged the New York State COVID-19 mandate and vaccine safety and efficacy. Nanakumo alleged that defendants conspired to create the pandemic and force vaccination. He purported to sue on behalf of all people affected by vaccine mandates and sought extremely large damages, as well as an order empaneling a grand jury to review vaccine-mandate decisions and remove judges.

Court's analysis

The court explained that a self-represented person may appear only for himself or herself and may not bring claims for other people. It therefore treated the lawsuit as asserting claims only on Nanakumo's behalf.

The court stated that Title VII claims require an employer-employee relationship and that Title VII does not impose individual liability. It concluded that Nanakumo could pursue employment-discrimination claims under Title VII and the New York State and New York City human-rights laws only against H+H. The complaint did not allege facts showing that the individual defendants were employed by H+H or directly participated in discriminatory conduct. The court granted leave to amend the employment claims and to name defendants who could properly be liable under those laws.

Applying the screening rules for complaints filed without prepaying fees, the court dismissed the claims concerning the alleged origin of the pandemic and the purpose of the vaccine mandate as frivolous. The court found that those allegations were largely irrational or wholly incredible and did not provide a factual basis or legal theory for a viable civil claim. The court also explained that Nanakumo could not use this civil case to initiate federal criminal prosecutions or direct prosecutors to bring charges.

Disposition

The court dismissed all claims other than the employment-discrimination claims against H+H arising under Title VII and the state and city human-rights laws as frivolous. It granted Nanakumo 60 days to file an amended complaint detailing only those employment-discrimination claims. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the existing complaint. The court directed him to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit, identify the case number, and provide facts about the relevant people, events, injuries, and requested relief.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Nanakumo did not timely file the amended complaint and could not show good cause for the failure, the action 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 purposes of an appeal.