Lugo v. The Center

Background

Carlos Lugo, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the Lesbian & Gay Community Services Center, which the opinion calls “The Center,” and Chris LaPlant. Lugo alleged employment discrimination based on sexual orientation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law.

Lugo alleged that he accepted a temporary porter position at The Center through Forrest Solution, a temporary job agency, in September 2019. He said that a coworker identified as Kia began treating him in a threatening, aggressive, and harassing manner after a disagreement about his work. Lugo reported Kia’s conduct to his supervisor and to LaPlant. After a later workplace incident, Lugo was sent home and was told by Forrest Solution that he had been fired for being aggressive toward Kia.

Lugo filed a complaint with the New York State Division of Human Rights based on the same underlying events. After investigating, the Division found that he had not presented allegations or evidence that he was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation or that he had complained about discrimination or harassment based on a protected category. A New York state court later denied Lugo’s challenge to that decision.

Defendants’ Motion

The defendants moved to dismiss Lugo’s Title VII claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and his state-law claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legally sufficient claim.

New York State Human Rights Law Claim

The court held that the state-law claim against The Center could not proceed because Lugo had already pursued the same claim through the New York State Division of Human Rights. The court explained that administrative review through that agency and a court action under the state law are mutually exclusive when the agency has decided the claim on the merits. The court therefore concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Lugo’s state-law claim against The Center.

Although LaPlant was not named in Lugo’s Division of Human Rights proceeding, the court held that it also lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the state-law claim against LaPlant because the allegations in the two matters were the same.

Title VII Claims

The court held that Lugo could not pursue Title VII claims against LaPlant because Title VII does not impose individual liability on supervisors or other individual defendants.

As to The Center, the court ruled that Lugo had not adequately alleged retaliation. A Title VII retaliation claim requires a plausible allegation that the employer took an adverse employment action because the employee opposed an unlawful employment practice. Lugo alleged that he was fired after complaining about Kia’s threatening, aggressive, and harassing behavior, but he did not allege that Kia’s conduct constituted unlawful discrimination under Title VII.

The court also ruled that Lugo had not adequately alleged a Title VII discrimination claim against The Center. He described a disagreement with Kia about his work and said that Kia then treated him aggressively, but he did not allege that the disagreement or the treatment was related to his sexual orientation or gender identity. Although Lugo stated that he was a heterosexual man and that the workplace was predominantly gay, the court found that he had not alleged facts showing that his sexual orientation or gender identity motivated his termination.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court concluded that amending the state-law claim would be futile because the claim had already been resolved by the Division of Human Rights. It also concluded that the Title VII claims against LaPlant could not be cured because Title VII does not permit those claims against an individual.

Because Lugo had not previously amended his complaint, was representing himself, and might be able to state a valid Title VII claim against The Center, the court granted him leave to amend that claim. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Lugo’s claims against LaPlant were dismissed with prejudice; his New York State Human Rights Law claim against The Center was dismissed with prejudice; and his Title VII claim against The Center was dismissed without prejudice. Lugo could file an amended complaint within 30 days of the opinion and order. The Clerk was also directed to correct The Center’s name in the caption.