Smith v. Tishman

Background

Stewart M. Smith, proceeding without a lawyer, sued AECOM Tishman, Tishman Construction Corporation, Robert Holt, Mark Anthony Fleming, and Harold Blake. He alleged breach of contract and violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Penal Law.

Smith alleged that Tishman hired him for a temporary international assignment on a construction project at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. He alleged that he had chronic kidney dysfunction, that his work became more exposed to heat and sun after a younger worker replaced a departing coworker, and that he was fired after missing work because he became sick following a long workday.

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a legal claim. Magistrate Judge Stewart Aaron recommended granting the motion in part and denying it in part. Smith objected to recommendations concerning his trafficking, New York Penal Law, and breach-of-contract claims. Judge Gardephe reviewed those objections and reviewed the unchallenged portions of the recommendation for clear error.

Rulings on the Challenged Claims

The court granted the motion as to Smith’s TVPA claim. The TVPA provision at issue prohibits obtaining labor through specified means, including force, threats of force, serious harm, threats of serious harm, abuse of legal process, or a scheme intended to create a belief that serious harm or restraint would result from refusing to work. The court concluded that Smith’s allegations did not show that Defendants compelled him to work through any such means. The court noted that Smith alleged he accepted the job voluntarily and could leave because the employment was at will.

The court also granted the motion as to Smith’s New York Penal Law trafficking claims. It agreed that the cited New York criminal provisions did not apply to conduct outside New York and that Smith could not privately enforce criminal statutes through a civil lawsuit.

The court granted the motion as to the breach-of-contract claim. Smith relied on Section 2-205 of the Uniform Commercial Code, but the court agreed that the cited provision concerns sales of goods and did not apply to his employment agreement. The court also noted that the complaint did not explain how Defendants breached the attached agreement. The court did not consider additional allegations about medical coverage and installment payments because Smith raised them for the first time in his objections.

Unchallenged Recommendations

The court granted the motion as to Smith’s ADEA claim. Although Smith alleged that his age was a reason for his termination, the court concluded that he had not plausibly alleged that age was the necessary cause of his termination or another adverse employment action.

The court found that Smith satisfied the administrative-exhaustion requirement for his ADEA and ADA claims. His Equal Employment Opportunity Commission intake questionnaire identified age and disability discrimination and stated that he wanted to file a discrimination charge and authorized the agency to investigate.

The court denied the motion as to Smith’s ADA claims against the corporate defendants. Those claims alleged disability-based termination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. The court granted the motion as to Smith’s ADA claims against the individual defendants because the ADA does not provide for individual liability.

The court granted the motion as to Smith’s Rehabilitation Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims. It agreed that the Rehabilitation Act did not apply to the alleged conduct at Guantanamo Bay and that the New York statutes did not apply to conduct occurring outside New York State or New York City under the circumstances described in the opinion.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court adopted the report and recommendation in its entirety. It granted leave to amend Smith’s breach-of-contract and ADEA claims, but concluded that amendment would be futile for the Rehabilitation Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, TVPA, New York Penal Law, and ADA claims against the individual defendants. Any motion to file an amended complaint had to be filed by April 28, 2023, with the proposed amended complaint attached.