Aris v. New York Guard

Background

Joram J. Aris proceeded without a lawyer and sued the New York Guard, the New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs, New York State, Adjutant General Raymond F. Shields, and Governor Kathy Hochul. Aris alleged that he was a Jewish soldier born in Israel who had served in the New York Guard for almost 20 years. He claimed that defendants treated him unfairly because of religion, national origin, and age; failed to promote him; denied him opportunities to obtain qualifications; and terminated, retaliated against, harassed, or otherwise subjected him to unfavorable employment conditions. He also alleged that a nonparty colonel created a hostile work environment over nearly 20 years.

Aris asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. His requested relief included promotion to colonel, approval of two New York State Medals of Valor, approval of proposed legislation, $10 million in damages, dismissal or striking of a money judgment obtained by a former client, reinstatement of his New York law license, and costs.

Defendants’ Motion

Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rule 12(b)(1) addresses the court’s power to hear a case, while Rule 12(b)(6) addresses whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. Defendants argued that intra-military immunity barred Aris’s claims, that the Eleventh Amendment barred many of his claims, and that the complaint failed to state a Title VII claim.

The court also found that Aris’s 184-page opposition exceeded the 25-page limit in the court’s individual rules, lacked required tables, and included allegations that were not in the complaint. The court nevertheless considered the opposition in full and warned that future failures to follow court rules could result in rejection of a submission or sanctions.

Intra-Military Immunity

The court held that intra-military immunity barred all of Aris’s claims. This doctrine prevents federal courts from hearing claims when the injuries arise from, or occur during, a person’s military service. The court explained that the doctrine protects military personnel matters and prevents courts from conducting particularized reviews of military decision-making, including promotions and other internal personnel decisions.

The court determined that all of Aris’s allegations concerned his service in the Guard. It rejected his argument that an exception applied because defendants allegedly violated New York Guard Directive 1305 concerning promotions. The court found that Aris’s allegations were largely conclusory, did not identify a mandatory regulation that defendants violated, and did not show that any violation substantially prejudiced him. The court therefore concluded that the alleged discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and promotion decisions were not subject to judicial review.

The court stated that all of Aris’s claims were dismissed as barred by intra-military immunity. It also noted that claims for retaliation were dismissed for the additional reason that Aris withdrew or otherwise abandoned them in his opposition.

Eleventh Amendment Immunity

The court separately held that the Eleventh Amendment barred Aris’s claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law against the Guard, the Division of Military and Naval Affairs, and New York State. The court also held that the Eleventh Amendment barred those claims for damages against the Governor and Adjutant General in their official capacities.

The court noted that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar those claims against the Governor or Adjutant General in their personal capacities or claims for prospective injunctive relief against them in their official capacities. However, the court held that intra-military immunity still barred those claims.

Ruling and Disposition

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) because of intra-military immunity and the Eleventh Amendment. Because the court dismissed the complaint on that basis, it did not decide defendants’ Rule 12(b)(6) arguments, including whether the complaint adequately stated a Title VII claim.

The court denied Aris’s request for leave to amend because he did not explain how an amended complaint would cure the immunity problems and amendment would be futile. The Clerk was directed to mail Aris a copy of the opinion and order and close the case. The opinion does not state whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.