Obergh v. Building Maintenance Services LLC

Background

Mayra Obergh and Ivonne Brito originally sued Building Maintenance Services, LLC, Ethical Culture Fieldston School, and three individuals. Obergh and Brito later voluntarily dismissed their claims against the individuals. The court then dismissed the remaining claims while allowing Obergh to file an amended complaint. Obergh filed an amended complaint and an additional statement. The opinion says the amended complaint was largely duplicative of a complaint she had filed with the New York City Commission on Human Rights.

Obergh proceeded without a lawyer. She asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York City Human Rights Law. The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation

Magistrate Judge Cott recommended dismissing Obergh’s Title VII claims with prejudice and dismissing her New York City Human Rights Law claims without prejudice to renewing those claims in state court. “With prejudice” means the claims cannot be brought again in that form; “without prejudice” means the dismissal does not bar renewal of those claims as described in the order.

Judge Cott notified the parties that they had fourteen days to object. The recommendation also warned that failing to object would waive objections and prevent appellate review. No party objected. Because there were no objections, Judge Caproni reviewed the recommendation for clear error—an obvious mistake apparent from the record.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni found no clear error and adopted the recommendation in full. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint. It dismissed Obergh’s Title VII claims with prejudice and dismissed her New York City Human Rights Law claims without prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.

The court further ruled that the parties’ failure to object, after receiving adequate warning, precluded appellate review. Because appellate review was precluded, the court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal. The opinion does not provide the underlying factual allegations or a separate merits analysis of the discrimination claims; its stated basis for adopting the recommendation was the absence of clear error.