Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:22-cv-06322
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT, Judge Schofield ordered the defendant to address possible disability-discrimination claims in its dismissal-motion briefing.
Amirah Mercer and VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT. The defendant must address the potential Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law claims in its motion-to-dismiss briefing.
What happened
In Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT, Amirah Mercer filed the action without a lawyer. She alleged claims under federal employment and civil-rights laws, including Title VII, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 18 U.S.C. § 242.
The court said Mercer's allegations might plausibly state discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The opinion does not decide whether those claims were actually pleaded or whether they will succeed.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered the defendant to address those possible claims, in addition to the claims expressly identified in the complaint, when briefing its motion to dismiss. The order did not grant or deny the motion.
The detailed version
- Mercer v. VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT · No. 1:22-cv-06322
- Lorna Schofield
- June 30, 2023
Background
Amirah Mercer filed this action without a lawyer. The complaint alleged claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 18 U.S.C. § 242.
The court noted that filings by a party without a lawyer are read liberally, meaning the court considers the strongest claims reasonably suggested by the allegations. The court determined that the complaint might plausibly state discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, even though those claims were not expressly identified in the complaint.
Order
The court ordered VIACOMCBS/PARAMOUNT, when briefing its motion to dismiss, to address the potential Americans with Disabilities Act and New York City Human Rights Law discrimination claims as well as the claims expressly alleged in the complaint. The opinion does not rule on the motion to dismiss, decide whether any claim ultimately succeeds, or state that any claim was dismissed.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it directs briefing and does not decide the merits of Mercer's claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.