Plasencia v. City of New York Department of Education

Background

Cindy Plasencia brought this pro se employment case against the New York City Department of Education and Principal Maureen Fullerton. The opinion states that Plasencia worked for the Department of Education as a paraprofessional from 2005 to 2018. She alleged that, because of her age, medical-leave status, and depression, she was harassed by another teacher, terminated on or about June 5, 2018, and assigned a “problem code” in her employment file. She sought reinstatement or removal of the code.

Plasencia alleged claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and the New York State Human Rights Law. She had filed discrimination charges with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The state agency found no probable cause, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission adopted that determination and closed the case. Defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. The motion was unopposed after Plasencia did not file a response despite receiving extensions and a warning.

Court’s Analysis

Notice of claim against the Department of Education. The court held that New York Education Law § 3813(1) required Plasencia to file a notice of claim before suing the Department of Education. Because she had not done so, the court stated that her suit against the Department of Education must be dismissed and that the defect did not appear curable. The court said the dismissal was granted without leave to amend on this ground.

Claims against Principal Fullerton. The court stated that an individual defendant may be liable under the New York State Human Rights Law only if personally involved in the discriminatory conduct or if the defendant encouraged, approved, or assisted the discrimination or retaliation. It also stated that an individual defendant cannot be held personally liable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Because Plasencia made no specific allegations against Fullerton, the court dismissed the New York State Human Rights Law and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims against her.

New York State Human Rights Law jurisdiction. The court applied New York’s election-of-remedies rule. Under that rule, a discrimination claim previously filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights generally cannot also be brought in court, and the federal court lacks jurisdiction to decide it. The court found that Plasencia had filed the relevant claims with the state agency, which issued a no-probable-cause determination rather than dismissing for one of the exceptions identified by the court. The court therefore dismissed Plasencia’s New York State Human Rights Law claims with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Age-discrimination claims. For purposes of the motion, the court accepted that Plasencia’s termination was an adverse employment action and that she belonged to a protected age group. But it found that the complaint did not describe what happened during the termination or what reasons defendants gave for it. It also did not allege that younger, similarly situated employees were treated more favorably. The court concluded that the complaint did not provide enough facts to support an inference that age motivated the termination, and dismissed the age-discrimination claims.

Family and Medical Leave Act claim. The court explained that an interference claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act requires facts showing, among other things, that the employee was entitled to leave, notified the employer of an intent to take leave, and was denied benefits to which she was entitled. Plasencia alleged that she asked an assistant principal whether she should take medical leave and was reassured that she would not be fired. The court found no allegation that she actually requested leave or that defendants denied a leave request, and dismissed the Family and Medical Leave Act interference claim.

Hostile-work-environment claim. The court treated the hostile-work-environment claim as based on the same facts as the age- and disability-discrimination allegations. It found that the complaint offered only conclusory allegations and insufficient detail about the alleged yelling by “Mrs. Onco,” including the person’s relationship to Plasencia, the context, and whether the conduct was connected to Plasencia’s age or disability. The court concluded that the alleged conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a legally actionable hostile work environment and dismissed that claim.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion expressly states that Plasencia’s New York State Human Rights Law claims were dismissed with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(1). It also states that the Department of Education’s notice-of-claim deficiency was dismissed without leave to amend. At the end of the opinion, however, the court stated more generally that Plasencia would have an opportunity to file an amended complaint by October 12, 2023, to try to cure the deficiencies in her claims. The opinion does not separately specify the final disposition language for every non-New York State Human Rights Law claim.