Cadet v. Alliance Nursing Staffing of New York, Inc.

Background

Sherly Cadet, who was representing herself, sued Alliance Nursing Staffing of New York, Inc. She alleged federal, state, and local civil-rights violations arising from her employment as a home health aide. Cadet alleged that Alliance assigned her to work in the home of a person with a history of racial hostility, that she experienced racial abuse and threats there, and that Alliance later terminated her employment.

In September 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part Alliance’s motion to dismiss. The court allowed Cadet to continue with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York City Human Rights Law for retaliation, hostile work environment, and disparate treatment. The court granted Alliance’s motion to dismiss Cadet’s claims for interference with protected rights under the New York City Human Rights Law, claims under New York Labor Law § 195(6), disability-discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law, and her Thirteenth Amendment claim.

Discovery Violations

The present opinion did not decide whether Cadet’s remaining discrimination or retaliation claims were legally or factually correct. Instead, it addressed sanctions for Cadet’s failure to follow discovery and case-management orders. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties obtain information and documents from one another.

The court found that Cadet repeatedly failed to comply with its orders beginning no later than November 2022. Among other things, she filed repeated motions instead of following discovery deadlines, failed to participate as directed in case-management proceedings, did not attend a required October 11, 2023 conference, and refused to attend her deposition. The court ordered her to attend the deposition on three occasions. After Cadet refused to attend the deposition scheduled for December 1, 2023, fact discovery closed without her deposition.

The court also found that Cadet had received repeated warnings that continued noncompliance could lead to dismissal. The Second Circuit dismissed one of her interlocutory appeals for lack of jurisdiction and separately denied emergency relief, stating that the district-court proceedings were not stayed and that she had to comply with the district court’s orders.

Court’s Analysis

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 allows a court to impose sanctions when a party disobeys a discovery order, including dismissal of the action. The court evaluated the factors used in the Second Circuit: whether the noncompliance was willful, how long it continued, whether the party was warned about dismissal, and whether lesser sanctions would be effective.

Judge Katherine Polk Failla concluded that all four factors favored dismissal. She found that Cadet’s noncompliance was willful because the orders were clear, Cadet understood them, and she repeatedly refused to comply. The noncompliance lasted about a year, Cadet had been warned in five orders or endorsements that dismissal could result, and the court found that lesser sanctions would not secure her cooperation.

Disposition

The court dismissed Cadet’s complaint with prejudice under Rule 37. It did not impose attorneys’ fees or other monetary expenses, finding that such an award would be unjust given Cadet’s status as a self-represented litigant and her fee-free litigation status. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate pending motions, adjourn remaining dates, and close the case. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free appeal status.