Osby v. City of New York

Background

Tammy Osby, a former probation officer who retired from the New York City Department of Probation in 2019, brought this self-represented lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She identified her disabilities as cancer and diabetes. She alleged that the defendants retaliated against her, held a dismissed arrest against her, falsified her employment records, made false statements about her in a position statement submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and defamed her. She also alleged that she was forced to retire in 2019 because of a knee injury. The complaint could also be read to assert claims under New York State and New York City human-rights laws.

Osby alleged that she requested an employment-verification letter in June 2022 to support an application for benefits from the World Trade Center Medical Fund. She stated that she filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge in July 2022 and received a notice of the right to sue on February 10, 2023. The court also noted that Osby had brought an earlier related employment-discrimination action against the same defendants involving ADA discrimination and retaliation claims.

Court’s analysis

Because Osby was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened her complaint under the federal statute governing such cases. The court had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide enough facts to make relief reasonably plausible, while reading a self-represented party’s allegations liberally.

The court dismissed the claims against the New York City Department of Probation because, under New York City law, a city agency generally is not a separate entity that can be sued. The court treated Osby’s allegations against that department as allegations against the City of New York and dismissed the claims against the department without prejudice to Osby’s claims against the City.

The court held that Osby had not stated a plausible ADA-retaliation claim. First, she did not clearly identify what adverse employment action the defendants took, how the alleged dismissed arrest or falsified records affected her employment, or when those events occurred. Second, she referred to retaliation for “previous complaints” without explaining what the complaints concerned or when she made them, and did not allege that they involved disability discrimination. Third, she did not provide facts connecting the alleged conduct to her disability or protected activity. The court also stated that, to the extent she relied on her earlier lawsuit as protected activity, the complaint did not say that the lawsuit caused the later adverse action, and the lengthy period between them did not support a causal connection.

Because the court was allowing Osby to amend her federal claims, it reserved a decision on whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her possible state-law claims. Supplemental jurisdiction is the court’s discretionary authority to hear related state-law claims alongside federal claims.

The court denied Osby’s request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal at a later time. It found that the case was too early for the court to assess its merits adequately.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed Osby’s claims against the New York City Department of Probation for failure to state a claim, without prejudice to her claims against the City of New York. The court granted Osby 60 days to file an amended complaint stating the relevant facts, the defendants’ conduct, the timing and location of events, her injuries, and the relief sought. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it. The court stated that failure to amend on time, absent good cause, would result in dismissal for failure to state a claim. The court denied the request for pro bono counsel without prejudice to renewal and denied in forma pauperis status for an appeal because it certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.