Williams v. Social Security Administration

Background

Nicole L. Williams proceeded without a lawyer and sued the Social Security Administration (SSA), her former SSA supervisor Leslie Betts, and SSA Operations Support Branch Chief Caren Unger. She alleged employment discrimination and retaliation arising from her federal employment with the SSA, sought reinstatement and damages, and asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), and New York State and City human-rights laws.

The court had previously dismissed some claims and gave Williams 60 days to file a second amended complaint. It instructed her to identify the proper defendant for certain federal employment claims and to allege facts supporting discrimination and retaliation. Williams filed a second amended complaint again naming the SSA, Betts, and Unger, and adding claims under USERRA, the FLSA, and the FMLA.

Rulings on previously raised claims

The court again dismissed Williams’s claims under § 1981, the ADA, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law for failure to state a claim. The court stated that, because the claims arose from Williams’s federal employment with the SSA, Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act were the exclusive remedies for her race- and disability-employment claims and related retaliation claims.

The court again dismissed Williams’s Title VII, Rehabilitation Act, and ADEA claims against Betts and Unger for failure to state a claim because those statutes did not provide for claims against individual employees. It also dismissed those claims against the SSA under sovereign immunity, which generally protects the federal government from suits without a valid waiver, and consequently for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court noted that Williams had been told to name Acting SSA Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi, rather than the SSA, as the proper defendant, but did not do so.

The court further held that Williams had not alleged enough facts to state discrimination or retaliation claims under Title VII, the Rehabilitation Act, or the ADEA. For Title VII discrimination, she did not allege facts showing that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin motivated an adverse employment action. For her Rehabilitation Act accommodation claim, the court assumed that her alleged heart failure qualified as a disability but found that her request to reduce her work hours appeared aimed at preserving disability benefits and Medicare benefits, rather than enabling her to perform her job’s essential functions. For her ADEA claim, she did not allege facts showing that age was the reason her employment was terminated or that the termination would not have occurred but for her age.

For retaliation, the court found that Williams did not allege facts showing that an adverse action occurred because she opposed an unlawful employment practice under Title VII or the ADEA. It also found no facts showing a causal connection between protected activity and an adverse employment action under the Rehabilitation Act.

Newly raised claims

The court dismissed Williams’s USERRA discrimination claims because she alleged no facts showing that she had performed military service or that military service motivated an adverse employment action. It dismissed her USERRA retaliation claims because she alleged no facts showing that she engaged in protected activity concerning a USERRA violation or was retaliated against for doing so.

The court dismissed Williams’s FLSA overtime and minimum-wage claims because she alleged no facts showing that she worked more than 40 hours without overtime pay or that her average hourly wage fell below the federal minimum wage. The court also dismissed her FLSA retaliation claim because she alleged no facts showing participation in FLSA-protected activity or a causal connection between such activity and an adverse employment action.

The court dismissed Williams’s FMLA interference and retaliation claims for insufficient factual allegations but granted her leave to amend those claims. For interference, the court said it was unclear whether Williams was entitled to the leave at issue or was denied FMLA benefits. The court noted that the allegations appeared to show that she had been granted leave related to her health condition and her mother’s death, and that she was terminated for other stated reasons, including discourtesy to a security guard, unauthorized absence for personal business, reporting late, and failing to start work on time. For FMLA retaliation, Williams did not adequately allege that she exercised FMLA rights or that her termination occurred under circumstances suggesting retaliatory intent.

The court also stated that it was unclear whether federal employees have a private right of action under the FMLA against a federal employer. For purposes of this order, it assumed that Williams could assert such claims.

Disposition

The court dismissed all of Williams’s claims either under sovereign immunity and, consequently, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or for failure to state a claim. It granted Williams 60 days to file a third amended complaint alleging facts sufficient to state claims under the FMLA, and only under the FMLA. The new complaint would replace her earlier pleadings and had to identify the defendants, relevant facts, events, injuries, and requested relief. If she did not timely amend and did not show cause for the failure, the court stated that it would enter judgment dismissing the action.

The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal.