Jones v. NYU Langone Health Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center

Background

Everett D. Jones brought this self-represented lawsuit against NYU Langone Health Multiple Sclerosis Comprehensive Care Center, Jeana Gratch, Stephanie Fernandez, and Ilya Kister, MD. He alleged that his employment was wrongfully terminated.

Jones alleged that, in June 2022, he drafted a letter under Dr. Kister’s signature for a patient seeking COVID-19-related workplace accommodations. Jones said he had prepared similar letters for years and was solely responsible for providing such letters on behalf of the center’s physicians. Kister accused him of preparing the letter without consent or approval. On July 12, 2022, Gratch told Jones that an NYU investigation found that he had falsified medical documentation in violation of NYU Langone’s rules and policies, and that his employment would be terminated immediately. Jones disputed the stated reason and said he had not been trained on how to verify a patient’s self-reported COVID-19 status.

Jones used the court’s employment-discrimination complaint form but did not select any federal employment-discrimination statute. He instead checked a section for other federal, state, city, or county law and wrote wrongful termination. He alleged that Gratch initiated a termination plan based on unverified information, that Kister failed to provide evidence, and that Fernandez did not take proactive action as his supervisor. Jones had filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued him a Notice of Right to Sue.

Court’s Analysis

Because Jones was allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court was required to screen his complaint. The court had to dismiss an action or claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that self-represented complaints are read liberally, but still must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible.

The court explained that federal employment-discrimination laws prohibit adverse employment action based on protected characteristics, including race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, and age. Those laws also prohibit retaliation against an employee who opposed unlawful discrimination. Mistreatment for reasons unrelated to a protected characteristic or opposition to unlawful conduct is not actionable under those statutes.

The court found that Jones alleged he was terminated after an investigation concluded that he had falsified medical documentation, and that he suggested this reason might have been pretextual. But he did not allege facts suggesting that any protected characteristic played a role in the termination. He did not state his race, sex, national origin, age, or whether he had a disability, and he did not identify a federal antidiscrimination statute. The court therefore concluded that he failed to state a claim under the federal antidiscrimination statutes discussed in the order.

Disposition

The court granted Jones 60 days’ leave to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must provide facts showing that his employer took adverse action against him because of a protected characteristic and must describe the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so Jones must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider.

The court stated that no summons would issue at that time. If Jones did not file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed period and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Jones fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.