Hanton v. Leung
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-01421
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hanton v. Leung, Judge Swain denied Hanton’s request to undo dismissal because it did not address the defects supporting dismissal.
Terrence Hanton’s dismissed employment-discrimination case and his ability to file further papers in the district court under this case number; the court denied his Rule 60(b) motion and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for an appeal.
What happened
In Hanton v. Leung, Terrence Hanton, representing himself, brought an employment-discrimination case against Jay Leung, Anthony Cocuzza, and Natalie Eschavez of CVS Pharmacy. He alleged discrimination and retaliation based on his religion and sexual orientation under federal, New York State, and New York City laws.
The court had dismissed the case after finding that the individual defendants could not be held liable under the federal law and that Hanton’s allegations did not adequately state discrimination or retaliation claims. Hanton later submitted papers about a performance review that he said was changed from positive to negative after he declined a management position outside his work availability. The court treated those papers as a request to undo the dismissal, but denied that request because they did not address the reasons the case had been dismissed or show discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, race, color, or national origin.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied the request and terminated the remaining matters. The case is closed, and the court directed the Clerk not to accept further filings under the case number except papers directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court also denied Hanton permission to proceed without paying filing fees on an appeal, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Hanton v. Leung · No. 1:23-cv-01421
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 20, 2023
Background
Terrence Hanton, proceeding without a lawyer, filed an employment-discrimination action against Jay Leung, Anthony Cocuzza, and Natalie Eschavez, identified in the opinion as being of CVS Pharmacy. Hanton asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal employment-discrimination law, and the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws. He alleged discrimination and retaliation based on his religion and sexual orientation while he was employed at a CVS Pharmacy.
The court previously determined that the individual defendants could not be held liable under Title VII. It also determined that Hanton’s allegations that Eschavez prevented him from transferring to another CVS Pharmacy and made comments he viewed as directed at his sexual orientation did not adequately state Title VII discrimination or retaliation claims based on his unidentified religion or sexual orientation. The court gave Hanton 60 days to file an amended complaint naming his employer and providing more detail. After he did not file an amended complaint, the court dismissed the action on August 30, 2023, for the reasons stated in its earlier order.
The Later Motion
On October 2, 2023, the court received Hanton’s notice of motion and supporting declaration. Hanton stated that Eschavez had given him a positive performance review in June 2020 but later changed it to negative at the direction of Leung and Cocuzza because he would not accept a management position outside his work availability that would have paid a fraction of his actual income. Hanton did not specify what relief he sought.
The court construed the submissions together as a motion under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 60(b) allows a court to provide relief from a judgment or order for specified reasons, including mistake, newly discovered evidence, misconduct, a void judgment, satisfaction of the judgment, or other extraordinary circumstances.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that Hanton’s motion did not address his failure to file an amended complaint or the defects identified in the original complaint. His assertions about the changed performance review also did not suggest that the defendants acted because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, as required for the federal claims identified in the opinion. The court found that Hanton had not shown grounds for relief under the first five provisions of Rule 60(b), or extraordinary circumstances under the sixth provision.
Disposition
The court denied the Rule 60(b) motion. It terminated all other pending matters, closed the action, and directed the Clerk not to accept further submissions under the closed case number except papers directed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying filing fees for purposes of an appeal.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.