Adams v. Forum Personnel Inc.

Background

Tommy F. Adams filed this self-represented action against Forum Personnel Inc., doing business as The Forum Group, and Forum’s Director of Human Resources. He asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He sought damages.

Adams alleged that Forum had denied him employment more than one hundred times over approximately 40 years because he was Black and had been the only Black captain of a white athletic team. He alleged that, in February 2022, he sent Forum a résumé for a Customer Service Representative position but received no response because of his race. He also alleged discrimination based on religion, age, and disability, and claimed that Forum retaliated against him because he had filed a workers’ compensation claim in 1986. He stated that he was 61 years old, Christian, and Black, and that he had schizophrenia.

The court had previously allowed Adams to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which requires dismissal of an eligible complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a legally sufficient claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court also considered whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction, meaning legal authority to hear the claims.

New York State and New York City claims

The court dismissed Adams’s claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Both laws generally bar a person who has filed the same claim with the New York State Division of Human Rights from later bringing that claim in federal court, subject to specified exceptions.

Adams attached a New York State Division of Human Rights determination concerning his administrative claims based on age, religion, race or color, and retaliation. The court found that he did not allege facts showing that any exception to the election-of-remedies provisions applied. It therefore dismissed the state and city law claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3).

Claims against the Director of Human Resources

The court dismissed Adams’s Title VII, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act discrimination and retaliation claims against the Director of Human Resources for failure to state a claim. The court explained that these statutes do not provide for employment discrimination or retaliation claims against individual employees.

The court separately stated that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 can impose individual liability, so it allowed Adams an opportunity to provide additional facts supporting a § 1981 claim against the Director of Human Resources.

Discrimination claims against Forum and § 1981 claims

The court concluded that Adams’s allegations of race-, color-, and religion-based discrimination were too conclusory and lacked sufficient detail. He did not allege facts plausibly suggesting that a protected characteristic motivated Forum’s failure to respond to his application. He also did not allege that, but for his race, Forum or the Director of Human Resources would have responded.

The court likewise found that Adams had not stated an Americans with Disabilities Act claim. Although it assumed for purposes of the order that schizophrenia qualified as a disability, Adams did not allege facts suggesting that Forum would have acted differently but for that disability. The court also found that Adams had not alleged facts showing that age was the but-for cause of Forum’s failure to respond, as required for an age-discrimination claim.

The court did not grant judgment on these claims. Instead, because Adams was representing himself, it granted him leave to amend so that he could allege additional facts supporting possible Title VII, § 1981, Americans with Disabilities Act, and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims.

Retaliation claims

The court considered Adams’s apparent retaliation claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and § 1981. It found that he alleged no facts showing that he suffered an adverse employment action because he opposed unlawful discrimination or otherwise engaged in legally protected activity. His allegation that Forum retaliated against him for filing a workers’ compensation claim nearly four decades earlier did not support a causal connection, and the court stated that the workers’ compensation claim was not opposition to an unlawful employment practice or other protected conduct.

The court therefore found that Adams had failed to state retaliation claims against Forum under those statutes or a § 1981 retaliation claim against the Director of Human Resources. It granted leave to amend those claims as well.

Disposition

Judge Laura Taylor Swain granted Adams 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must replace the original complaint and include the facts and claims Adams wants the court to consider, including relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. The court directed him to submit it to the Pro Se Intake Unit and use the existing docket number. No summons would issue at that time.

The order states that if Adams failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the court would enter an order dismissing the action for the reasons stated. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.