Williams v. Social Security Administration

Background

Nicole Lenoir Williams proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the usual filing fee. She sued the Social Security Administration, her former supervisor Leslie Betts, and Caren Unger, Charles Gusavitch, and Steven J. Stonovitsch. The opinion states that Unger, Gusavitch, and Stonovitsch appeared to be Social Security Administration officials.

In an October 10, 2023 order, the court had dismissed Williams’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and New York State and City human-rights laws for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed her claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 based on sovereign immunity, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim. The court further dismissed claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act for failure to state a claim. It allowed Williams to file a third amended complaint only to replead claims for interference with and retaliation under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Williams filed that third amended complaint on December 11, 2023. She again asserted Americans with Disabilities Act and Family and Medical Leave Act claims arising from her employment with and termination from the Social Security Administration, and she sought damages.

Americans with Disabilities Act claims

The court dismissed Williams’s Americans with Disabilities Act claims again. It relied on its earlier conclusion that Williams could not seek relief under that statute for claims arising from her federal employment. The court also noted that its prior order had allowed her to replead only Family and Medical Leave Act claims, not Americans with Disabilities Act claims.

Family and Medical Leave Act claims

The Family and Medical Leave Act generally provides eligible employees up to 12 workweeks of leave during a 12-month period for specified reasons, including a serious health condition that prevents an employee from performing the functions of the job. The court assumed for purposes of this order that the statute allowed a federal employee like Williams to bring a private lawsuit, although it noted that the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit had not resolved that question.

The court explained that the statute can support interference claims, involving an employer’s prevention or obstruction of protected leave rights, and retaliation claims, involving adverse action after an employee exercises or opposes conduct related to those rights. For both types of claims, the employee must generally be eligible under the statute. Eligibility ordinarily requires at least 12 months of employment and at least 1,250 hours of service during the prior 12-month period.

The court found that Williams had not alleged facts showing that she was an eligible employee. Based on documents attached to her complaint, the court understood her allegations to be that she began working for the Social Security Administration on January 18, 2022, and was terminated on November 7, 2022. The court calculated that period as nine months and 20 days. Because that was less than the required 12 months, the court concluded that Williams was not entitled to Family and Medical Leave Act leave, had not stated an interference claim, and could not show that she exercised a right protected by the statute for purposes of a retaliation claim.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because it concluded that allowing Williams to file a fourth amended complaint would be futile. It dismissed the action for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), and directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the action.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied Williams’s fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.