Itwaru v. The New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

Background

Natasha Itwaru filed the action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. She sued the New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene (DOHMH), Anita Richichi, Barbara Glove-Cox, Monica Pollack, Althea Jackson, and Bella Morrow.

Itwaru asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also asserted claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. Because she named individuals who work for a New York City municipality, the court construed the complaint as also asserting constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Itwaru appeared to allege that DOHMH discriminated against her because she is from Guyana and describes herself as “Mix Race-West Indian,” and because she has chronic pain, depression, anxiety, asthma, hypertension, and allergies. She alleged that the defendants failed to promote her, failed to accommodate her disability, harassed her, treated her differently from similarly situated employees, and retaliated against her.

The complaint’s principal factual allegation concerned Itwaru’s application for the Bronx Bureau Director position on September 24, 2021. She alleged that DOHMH did not hire her even though she was “the only high rank[ing] employee of Guyanese/West Indian descent in the Bureau of Childcare.” She referred to an attachment for more information, but the court stated that the attachment appeared not to have been included. She sought a promotion, disability accommodation, and money damages.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that a complaint must include enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, meaning that the alleged facts must support a reasonable inference that a defendant is legally responsible. Courts must read complaints filed by people without lawyers liberally and consider the strongest claims the allegations suggest.

The court concluded that Itwaru did not appear to allege enough facts to suggest that DOHMH or the individual defendants discriminated against her because of her race, color, national origin, or disability. The court therefore granted her leave to provide additional facts supporting her Title VII, § 1983, Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and New York City Human Rights Law claims.

The court also noted that § 1981 does not provide a separate private cause of action against state actors. It further stated that Itwaru could amend the complaint to add the City of New York as a defendant because a New York City agency such as DOHMH is not an entity that can be sued under § 1983.

Ruling and next steps

The court granted Itwaru 30 days from the order’s date to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to provide a short and plain statement of the relevant facts for each claim and each defendant, including the relevant people and their titles, what each defendant did or failed to do, approximate dates and locations, her injuries, and the relief sought.

The court stated that the amended complaint would completely replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. It directed Itwaru to submit the filing to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit by April 29, 2024, caption it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 24-CV-2020 (JHR) (SDA). The court stated that if she failed to file by the deadline, it may recommend to the district judge that the action be dismissed.