Williams v. Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside

Background

Derick Louis Williams, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Samaritan Daytop Village Woodside Senior Center, Tonya Chestnut, and Robert Kloepping. The opinion identifies the Senior Center as being in Queens County, identifies Chestnut as the Senior Center’s Program Director, and identifies Kloepping as an assistant to a vice president at a Samaritan Daytop location in Bronx County. Williams alleged that defendants threatened his job, treated him differently because he is a man, made racist comments, and retaliated against him while he worked as a custodian.

Williams alleged that Chestnut wrote him up for poor work performance and that, on October 13, 2023, she refused to call an ambulance when he requested medical assistance. Materials attached to his complaint included a New York State Division of Human Rights charge asserting discrimination and retaliation based on his opposition to discrimination and his marital status, which he identified as single. He also attached an August 3, 2023, written warning from Chestnut and allegations about a conversation in which Kloepping allegedly threatened to fire him if he did not appear for work and encouraged him to “swing” at Kloepping. Williams understood that comment as racist. He sought unspecified monetary damages.

Legal standard

Because Williams was allowed to proceed without prepaying filing fees, the court was required to dismiss any claim that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, sought money from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also applied the rule requiring a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. A claim must be plausible based on well-pleaded facts, rather than merely possible or based on legal conclusions.

The court read the complaint as asserting race and sex discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the pleading stage, Williams had to allege facts plausibly showing an adverse employment action and that race, sex, or another protected characteristic was a motivating factor, or that he opposed unlawful discrimination and suffered retaliation because of that opposition.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that the allegations against Chestnut did not state a sex-discrimination claim because they suggested only that a female supervisor reprimanded a male employee, not that Chestnut treated Williams differently because he was a man. The allegations against Kloepping did not state a race-discrimination claim because they described comments Williams understood as racist but did not allege that Kloepping took an adverse employment action against him because of his race. The court also found that the retaliation allegations lacked facts identifying the unlawful discriminatory conduct Williams opposed, the adverse action taken against him, and the reason connecting the action to his opposition.

The court did not enter a final dismissal at this stage. It granted Williams leave to amend because he might be able to provide additional facts supporting Title VII claims. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Williams must repeat any facts or claims he wants the court to consider.

Disposition

The court granted Williams 60 days to file an amended complaint that identifies the relevant people and their titles, describes what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it occurred, describes his injuries, and states the relief sought. The order says no summons will issue at that time. It further states that if Williams does not comply within the allowed period and cannot show good cause, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Williams permission to appeal without prepaying fees.

Effect of the order

The order gave Williams an opportunity to continue the case by filing a compliant amended complaint. It did not decide that the defendants were liable, and it did not finally resolve the alleged discrimination or retaliation claims.