Jones v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz

Background

Loretta Jones, appearing without a lawyer, sued H&M Hennes & Mauritz and several federal, state, and local entities and individuals. She invoked federal-question jurisdiction and alleged violations involving equal protection, employment discrimination, sexual harassment, and other conduct. Her allegations concerned employment at H&M in 2000 and 2001, a workplace injury, a prior settlement with H&M, workers’ compensation proceedings, and alleged continuing assaults through what she called “Remote Weaponry Invasions.” She sought $250 million collectively.

The court was reviewing the complaint under the statute governing complaints filed without prepayment of fees. That statute requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, fail to state a legally sufficient claim, seek relief from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring dismissal when it lacks jurisdiction and the rule requiring a complaint to give enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

Rulings on the Claims

The court dismissed as frivolous Jones’s claims based on alleged “Remote Weaponry Invasions.” It found those allegations largely irrational or wholly incredible and unsupported by facts suggesting that the events occurred or were possible.

The court dismissed claims against the United States, the United States Supreme Court, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because sovereign immunity generally prevents suits against the federal government and its agencies unless immunity has been waived. The court found that Jones had not pleaded facts showing a waiver. It also dismissed the claims against the International Criminal Court without prejudice for failure to state a claim because the complaint did not describe that court’s involvement in the events.

The court dismissed any constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against H&M and Vanessa Light because they were private parties and Jones did not allege that they acted under state authority. It dismissed the § 1983 claims against New York State and the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. It dismissed the claims against the New York City Police Department because a New York City agency is not a suable entity, while construing those allegations as claims against the City of New York. The court then dismissed the claims against the City and New York City Health + Hospitals because Jones did not allege that either had a policy, custom, or practice that caused a constitutional violation.

The court treated Jones’s allegations that H&M discriminated against her because of sex and race as possible claims under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law. It dismissed those claims for failure to state a claim because the alleged discrimination occurred in 2000 and 2001, Jones did not allege that she filed a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and she filed this action in 2023. The court found no pleaded facts supporting extra time under equitable tolling, which can extend a deadline in rare circumstances.

Disposition and Leave to Amend

The court dismissed the complaint as frivolous, for failure to state a claim, because some defendants were immune, and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims after dismissing the federal claims. The court granted Jones 30 days to replead her Title VII claims in an amended complaint alleging facts showing that the claims were timely or that equitable tolling should apply. The amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than supplement it.

The court directed Jones to submit the amended complaint to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 23-CV-4778 (LTS). It stated that no summons would issue at that time and that, if Jones did not comply and could not show good cause, the Clerk would be directed to enter judgment consistent with the order. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.