Richards v. City of New York

Background

Alroy Richards brought the action without a lawyer against the City of New York. He alleged that the City failed to hire him for a position with the New York City Department of Homeless Services after he applied and completed employment-related documentation. He claimed that the failure to hire him was retaliation for lawsuits he had previously filed against the City and discrimination based on his age, race, color, national origin, immigration status, and other unspecified protected characteristics.

Richards asserted employment-discrimination and retaliation claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. He also asserted federal constitutional claims, which the court construed as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with retaliation and employment-discrimination claims under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law. He sought immediate hiring, damages, a cease-and-desist order, and mediation.

Federal Claims

The court concluded that Richards’s Title VII discrimination allegations were conclusory and did not connect the City’s failure to hire him to a characteristic protected by Title VII. His Title VII retaliation claim also lacked facts showing that he suffered an adverse employment action because he opposed an unlawful employment practice or that his earlier lawsuit was the cause of the City’s failure to hire him.

The court found that Richards had not alleged facts showing that his age was the required cause of the City’s failure to hire him, so his ADEA discrimination claim was insufficient. His ADEA retaliation claim failed for the same reasons as his Title VII retaliation claim.

For the § 1983 claims, the court explained that a municipality can be liable only when its own policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. Richards did not allege facts showing that a City policy, custom, or practice caused a violation of his federal constitutional rights.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

Because Richards was representing himself and might be able to state valid claims by providing additional facts, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The amended complaint had to replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint and include the facts and claims he wanted the court to consider, including the relevant people, events, dates, locations, injuries, and requested relief.

The court did not decide the merits of the state-law claims. It warned that if Richards failed to file a compliant amended complaint within the allowed time and could not show good cause, it might dismiss the federal claims for failure to state a claim and decline to consider the state-law claims. The City was not required to respond until Richards filed an amended complaint complying with the order.

The court also certified that any appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appellate filing fees. Judge Vernon S. Broderick signed the order on April 11, 2024.