Adams v. City of New York, Office of Labor Relations
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-06637
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Adams v. City of New York, Judge Swain dismissed the state-law claims and allowed amendment of the federal employment-discrimination claims within 60 days.
Tommy F. Adams must amend his complaint within 60 days if he wants to continue pursuing the federal employment-discrimination claims. His claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The City of New York’s Office of Labor Relations remains the named defendant in the action.
What happened
In Adams v. City of New York, Office of Labor Relations, Tommy F. Adams, representing himself, alleged that the defendant repeatedly refused to hire him because of his race and sexual orientation. He brought claims under federal and New York employment-discrimination laws.
The court dismissed Adams’s claims under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws because he had already pursued the same allegations before the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court found that his allegations under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 did not contain enough facts to support discrimination claims, but it did not dismiss those claims in the order’s conclusion; instead, it granted him leave to amend.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain gave Adams 60 days to file an amended complaint with more factual detail. The court also denied his ability to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Adams v. City of New York, Office of Labor Relations · No. 1:23-cv-06637
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Tommy F. Adams filed this self-represented employment-discrimination action against the City of New York’s Office of Labor Relations. He asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. He alleged that the defendant refused to hire him for a Data Processor position and had rejected him for employment numerous times because of his race and sexual orientation. He sought damages.
Adams had previously filed an administrative complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights concerning the defendant’s failure to hire him as a Data Processor. The state agency issued a May 30, 2023 determination finding no probable cause to believe that the defendant engaged in unlawful discrimination.
Court’s Analysis
The court dismissed the New York State and New York City Human Rights Law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that both laws generally prevent a person who has filed the same discrimination claim with the New York State Division of Human Rights from bringing that claim as a court action. The court found that Adams did not allege facts showing that any exception to those election-of-remedies rules applied.
The court also concluded that Adams’s allegations under Title VII and Section 1981 were too conclusory and lacked sufficient factual detail. For Title VII, the court said he had not adequately alleged that a protected characteristic was a motivating factor in the hiring decision. For Section 1981, the court said he had not adequately alleged that the defendant would have hired him but for his race.
Because Adams was representing himself and might be able to provide additional facts, the court granted him leave to amend his complaint. The opinion’s conclusion did not state that the Title VII or Section 1981 claims were dismissed; it granted leave to file an amended complaint that could state those claims adequately.
Order
The court granted Adams 60 days from the date of the order to file an amended complaint. The new complaint had to replace the original complaint rather than supplement it and had to include the facts, relevant people, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief that Adams wanted the court to consider. The court directed him to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 1:23-CV-6637. No summons would issue at that time.
The court stated that if Adams failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, it would enter an order and judgment dismissing the action for the reasons described in the opinion. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Adams permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.