Cortes v. William Goittlieb Management Co. LLC

Background

Caroline Cortes, who was proceeding without a lawyer, brought a Title VII employment-discrimination action against William Gottlieb Management Co. LLC. She submitted a charge filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights as her complaint. The court had previously allowed her to proceed without paying filing fees upfront.

Cortes alleged that she applied for a staff accountant position in December 2022. After she and a company employee negotiated a salary, a human-resources employee, Sandra Droste, offered her the position. Cortes then disclosed that she had a 2020 conviction for driving under the influence and that her license had been revoked. According to the charge, Droste reacted nervously, left to call an attorney, returned, and said she did not think the conviction would be a problem. Droste said she would request a background check. Cortes alleged that she never heard from the company again and was discriminated against because of her conviction record.

Cortes also alleged discrimination based on a “prior charge unrelated to position,” but she did not explain what that charge was, whether it involved William Gottlieb, or whether the company knew about it.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the screening rules for complaints filed without upfront payment of fees. It explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or presents claims over which the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that pleadings filed by people without lawyers are read liberally, but they still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Title VII bars employment discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It can also support a disparate-impact claim when a seemingly neutral practice has a discriminatory effect on members of a protected class. The court stated that a criminal conviction is not itself a characteristic protected by Title VII. Thus, William Gottlieb’s alleged use of Cortes’s criminal history during the hiring process did not, by itself, violate Title VII.

The court also concluded that Cortes had not alleged enough facts for a disparate-impact claim because she did not identify a Title VII-protected class of which she was a member or explain how the company’s use of criminal history had a disparate impact on that class. The court further concluded that the allegation about a prior charge lacked facts showing what the charge concerned, that William Gottlieb knew about it, or that the company retaliated by refusing to hire her. The court did not determine that Cortes could never state a valid claim; it found that the complaint as submitted lacked the necessary facts.

Disposition

The court granted Cortes leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and must repeat any facts or claims Cortes wants the court to consider. The court directed her to provide facts about the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief. For a disparate-impact claim, she must describe her protected characteristics and the discriminatory effect of the criminal-history policy. For a retaliation claim, she must describe the prior charge and facts connecting it to the decision not to hire her.

No summons would issue at that time. The court stated that if Cortes failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying fees.