Hanton v. Leung

Background

Terrence Hanton proceeded without a lawyer and sued Jay Leung, Anthony Cocuzza, and Natalie Eschavez, identified in the caption as being of CVS Pharmacy. 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. He alleged discrimination and retaliation based on religion and sexual orientation.

Hanton alleged that Eschavez did not allow him to transfer to another CVS Pharmacy location after becoming Training General Manager during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the store’s changed operating hours were outside his availability. He also alleged that Eschavez made comments about men who worked with or were affiliated with her being gay. Hanton alleged no specific facts against Cocuzza or Leung. He sought injunctive relief and money damages. He also stated that he had filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a Notice of Right to Sue on November 21, 2022, but he did not attach the notice.

Screening standard

Because Hanton had been allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to include enough factual detail to make the claimed legal violation plausible, rather than relying only on legal conclusions. Although courts read complaints by self-represented parties liberally, those complaints still must meet the basic pleading requirements.

Title VII claims

The court held that Hanton could not bring Title VII claims against Eschavez, Cocuzza, and Leung individually. Title VII permits liability for an employer and certain other covered entities, but individuals are not subject to individual liability under Title VII. The court therefore dismissed Hanton’s Title VII claims against those three defendants.

The court also held that Hanton’s allegations were insufficient to state Title VII discrimination or retaliation claims. He did not allege facts showing that Eschavez’s actions were taken because of his religion or sexual orientation, and he alleged no facts against Cocuzza or Leung. The court instructed that any amended Title VII complaint must name Hanton’s employer as a defendant.

State-law claims

Hanton also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The court did not decide whether those claims could proceed. It stated that it would decide later whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over them, particularly because it was not clear that Hanton could state a claim over which the federal court had original jurisdiction.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Hanton leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the order. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim, identify what each defendant did or failed to do, and include relevant dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. Hanton was also told to provide addresses for named defendants if available and could attach his EEOC Notice of Right to Sue.

The amended complaint will completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Hanton must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider. The court stated that if he did not comply within the allowed time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons would issue at that time, and all other pending matters were terminated. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Hanton permission to proceed without prepaying fees for an appeal.