Madson v. Fato

Background

Joshua O. Madson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Lucy Fato and Peter Zaffino. He brought claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Madson identified his race as Jewish and his religion as Islam. He alleged that the defendants bullied and harassed him, denied him severance, terminated his employment, and conspired with domestic special-interest groups because of his race and religion. He sought an injunction and money damages.

Title VII claims

The court held that Madson could not bring Title VII claims against Fato and Zaffino because Title VII allows employment-discrimination claims against employers and other covered entities, not individual defendants. The court therefore dismissed Madson’s Title VII claims against Fato and Zaffino. It granted him leave to amend by naming his employer or another proper covered defendant.

The court also explained that an amended Title VII complaint must plausibly allege that the employer took adverse employment action against Madson and that his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor. The court noted that Madson’s complaint did not say whether he had filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an appropriate state or local agency. If he had completed that process, the court directed him to provide the information in the amended complaint.

Section 1981 claims

Section 1981 protects the right to make and enforce contracts without racial discrimination and provides an employment-discrimination remedy separate from Title VII. The court found that Madson had not alleged enough specific, non-conclusory facts to plausibly show that race was the necessary cause of the defendants’ alleged actions. In particular, he did not identify specific racially discriminatory conduct by Fato or Zaffino.

The court granted Madson leave to amend his Section 1981 claims. It instructed him to allege facts showing that the defendants took adverse employment action against him and that his race was the necessary cause of those actions.

State-law claims

Madson also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court did not decide those claims at this stage. It stated that it would later determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the power to hear related state-law claims—if no federal claim remained.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Madson 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, including relevant names and titles, events, approximate dates and locations, injuries, and requested relief. It must repeat any facts or claims from the original complaint that Madson wants the court to consider because the amended complaint will completely replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The court directed Madson to submit the filing to the Pro Se Intake Unit, caption it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-1482 (LTS). No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Madson did not comply within the permitted period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also terminated all other pending matters and denied fee-free appeal status after certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.