Harvey v. Business Integrity Commission

Background

Alexis F. Harvey filed this case without a lawyer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state law. She alleged that her former employer, the New York City Business Integrity Commission (BIC), discriminated against her because of her race, color, and sex. The court also said the complaint might be read to assert claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act and claims that the defendants discriminated against her because of her association with a person with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The court had already allowed Harvey to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because she was proceeding without paying that fee, the court was required to screen the complaint and dismiss claims that were frivolous, sought relief from an immune defendant, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, or were outside the court’s jurisdiction.

Claims Against the Individual Defendants

Harvey named Cindy Haskins, David A. Feldman, Elizabeth Crotty, David Mandell, and Tetiana Geletei as defendants. The court explained that Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act do not impose individual liability on employees. The court noted that state-law employment-discrimination claims may sometimes be brought against individuals who personally participated in discriminatory conduct.

The court nevertheless found that Harvey had not mentioned any of the five individuals by name in the body of her complaint or alleged what any of them did or failed to do. It therefore dismissed Harvey’s claims against Haskins, Feldman, Crotty, Mandell, and Geletei for failure to state a claim. The dismissal was without prejudice to Harvey’s repleading those claims in an amended complaint consistent with the federal pleading rules.

Business Integrity Commission and City of New York

The court stated that the Business Integrity Commission is an agency of the City of New York. It directed the Clerk of Court to add the City of New York as a defendant.

Because Harvey was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court ordered the Clerk to issue summonses and provide the necessary documents to the U.S. Marshals Service so the Marshals Service could serve the Business Integrity Commission and the City of New York. The court extended the service deadline until 90 days after the summonses are issued. It also stated that Harvey must ask for an extension if service is not completed within that period and must notify the court in writing if her address changes.

Disposition

The court dismissed, without prejudice to refiling, Harvey’s claims against Haskins, Feldman, Crotty, Mandell, and Geletei. It directed that the City of New York be added as a defendant and ordered issuance of summonses and service paperwork for the Business Integrity Commission and the City of New York. The court also denied Harvey permission to proceed without paying fees for an appeal and certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.