Joseph v. County of Westchester

Background

Thomas T. Joseph, proceeding without a lawyer, sued County of Westchester DCMH and Thomas S. Poovappillil. Joseph alleged that he worked for the County Department of Community Mental Health beginning in June 2008 and was terminated on February 5, 2018. He alleged that the termination resulted from gender discrimination and that Poovappillil made or influenced the termination decision.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The court treated two of Joseph’s letters as his opposition but rejected later letters as unauthorized additional filings or as lacking a basis for entering default judgment against defendants who had appeared.

Federal claim

The court understood Joseph’s complaint to include a claim under Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law. A person generally must file a federal lawsuit within 90 days after receiving the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s notice authorizing suit. Joseph’s notice was dated October 15, 2019.

Joseph first filed a federal action on January 15, 2020. That earlier action was dismissed on June 9, 2022, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to pursuing the matter in state court. Joseph then filed a state-court action on August 19, 2022, and filed this federal action on October 11, 2022.

The court held that the earlier federal filing did not pause the 90-day deadline for filing a Title VII action. Because the earlier case was dismissed after that deadline had expired, Joseph’s Title VII claim was time-barred. The court found no basis to extend the deadline for fairness reasons and dismissed the Title VII claim with prejudice. It also concluded that amending the claim would be futile.

State-law claim and disposition

Although Joseph did not identify the statutes supporting his discrimination claim, the court liberally construed his complaint as asserting a claim under the New York State Human Rights Law. After dismissing the Title VII claim, the only claim over which the court had original federal jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claim. The court therefore did not reach the defendants’ arguments for dismissing that claim, including the argument concerning failure to serve a notice of claim.

The court dismissed the state-law claim without prejudice to refiling in the proper forum. It granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case, and directed that a copy of the opinion be mailed to Joseph. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order.