Joachin v. Dream Job Staffing

Background

Nadine Joachin filed the action without a lawyer and was allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee. In an earlier order, the court gave her 60 days to file an amended complaint. The court had understood her original complaint to assert constitutional claims against the CHRC legal unit and a race-discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against Amsterdam Nursing Home, East Haven Nursing, and Dream Job Staffing.

The court instructed Joachin to identify the state officials personally involved in her employment application, describe how she challenged any unfavorable decision by the New York State Department of Health, and provide facts supporting her constitutional claims. For the workplace-discrimination claim, the court instructed her to describe the discriminatory events, when and where they occurred, who participated, and facts suggesting that the defendants considered her race when denying her employment.

Claims Against the CHRC Legal Unit

Joachin’s amended complaint again named the CHRC legal unit but did not name any individual defendants. It also did not allege facts showing that her rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or First Amendment were violated. Instead, she sought money damages for alleged workplace harassment and discrimination.

The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred money-damages claims against the CHRC legal unit because it is a state entity. The court therefore dismissed all claims against that defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(iii), which requires dismissal of certain claims seeking relief from an immune defendant when a person is proceeding without paying the filing fee.

Claims Against the Nursing Homes and Staffing Agency

The amended complaint did not provide facts describing discrimination at Amsterdam Nursing Home, East Haven Nursing, or Dream Job Staffing. The court found that Joachin’s general statements that she experienced discrimination were insufficient to state a claim under Title VII.

The court dismissed the claims against those three defendants for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). That dismissal was without prejudice to a future action against Joachin’s employer after she completes proceedings before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC. The court stated that, if the EEOC proceedings do not resolve her charge favorably and she receives a notice allowing her to sue, she may file a new civil action.

Further Amendment and Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend because Joachin had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects, but her amended complaint was nearly identical to the original complaint and did not add the requested facts.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)-(iii), without prejudice. The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing fee.