Wade v. Rodriguez

Background

Joseph W. Wade, appearing without a lawyer, sued the New York State Office of Planning, Development and Community Infrastructure (OPDCI). The opinion states that OPDCI is an office within the New York State Department of State. Wade brought the action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, alleging that OPDCI unlawfully considered an applicant’s characteristics in a request for proposals.

Wade, through his company Owl Contracting, LLC, responded to a request for proposals for a major state contract involving work in Manhattan. OPDCI informed him that he was not awarded the contract. Wade challenged a scoring formula that awarded two points out of 100 based on answers to a diversity-practices questionnaire. He alleged that, because he is a white man, his firm could not receive a perfect score without pledging profits to another party. He sought money damages and relief from bias.

Screening and legal theories

Because Wade had permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court was required to dismiss claims that were frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, or sought money from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction. It stated that pleadings filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, but they still must allege a plausible legal claim.

The court held that Wade’s claims did not arise under Title VII because the opinion did not identify an employee-employer relationship between Wade and the defendant. The court also concluded that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 did not provide the applicable claim against the State of New York. Section 1981 protects the equal right to make and enforce contracts without regard to race, but the court stated that it does not provide a separate private cause of action against state actors.

The court therefore construed Wade’s allegations that the diversity criteria constituted race- and gender-based discrimination as an equal-protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, brought through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Section 1983 provides a federal cause of action for certain constitutional violations by state actors.

Rulings concerning the defendants

The court dismissed Wade’s claims against OPDCI under the Eleventh Amendment. It explained that the Eleventh Amendment generally protects states, state agents, and state instrumentalities from federal-court suits unless the state has waived immunity or Congress has removed it. The court stated that New York had not waived its immunity for this suit and that Congress had not removed that immunity when it enacted Section 1983.

The court separately construed the complaint as asserting claims against New York Secretary of State Robert J. Rodriguez in his official capacity. It directed the Clerk of Court to add Rodriguez as a defendant under Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court stated that this addition was without prejudice to any defenses Rodriguez might assert. The court relied on the rule allowing claims for prospective injunctive or declaratory relief against an individual state official in an official capacity.

Service and other directions

Because Wade had permission to proceed without paying filing fees upfront, the court directed the Clerk of Court to issue a summons, complete the required U.S. Marshals Service form, and deliver the necessary paperwork to the Marshals Service so it could serve Rodriguez. The court stated that if service was not completed within 90 days after the summons was issued, Wade should request more time. It also required Wade to notify the court in writing if his address changed.

The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal. The order did not resolve the merits of the equal-protection claim against Rodriguez; that defendant was added and sent for service instead.

Disposition

The court dismissed Wade’s claims against OPDCI under the Eleventh Amendment, added Secretary Rodriguez in his official capacity, and directed service on him. The order is a procedural screening order rather than a decision on whether the challenged diversity criteria ultimately violate the Equal Protection Clause.