Carris v. First Student, Inc.
132 F. Supp. 3d 321
N.D.N.Y.2015Background
- Margo Carris, proceeding pro se, sued First Student, Inc. alleging Title VII and NY Executive Law § 296 discrimination.
- Plaintiff moved for leave to file an Amended Complaint (PAC); Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
- The court denied Carris’s motion to amend and granted First Student’s cross-motion to dismiss, dismissing the entire complaint with prejudice.
- Facts center on an October 2012 incident where Carris, a Black female bus driver, went to a student’s home off duty; she was terminated mid-October 2012 for alleged disclosure of information and identity-misidentification in related letters.
- The PAC sought to add numerous SCSD and First Student employees, plus Local 182 officials, asserting multiple federal and state claims including Title VII, § 1981–1988, LMRA §301 duties, and First Amendment grounds, among others.
- The court analyzed multiple issues: fraud, statute of limitations, state action for § 1983, conspiracy claims under § 1985/1986, § 1982/1988, HRL election-of-remedies, and whether Title VII claims could reach individuals; it held that amendments would be futile and that many claims lack state action or viability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment to the complaint is futile. | Carris contends amendments would state valid claims. | Amendments are futile and fail to cure deficiencies. | Amendment denied; futility established. |
| Whether hybrid LMRA § 301 claim is time-barred. | Equitable tolling or estoppel could save it. | Six-month limitation applies; claim untimely. | HybrID LMRA claim time-barred. |
| Whether HRL claim is barred by election-of-remedies. | SDHR findings should not bar federal suit; remedies may run concurrently. | HRL election-of-remedies bars federal lawsuit absent exceptions. | HRL discrimination claim barred; election-of-remedies applies. |
| Whether Title VII claims can be asserted against individuals and PAC defendants. | Plaintiff asserts Title VII rights against various individuals and entities. | Title VII does not permit individual liability; many PAC defendants not proper targets. | Title VII claims against individuals and PAC defendants dismissed. |
| Whether § 1983/§ 1985/§ 1986/§ 1982/§ 1988 claims and state action theories are viable. | Conspiratorial and state-action theories supported by allegations. | No plausible state action or conspiracy sufficiently pleaded; many claims futile. | Dismissal of § 1983/1985/1986/1982/1988 and state-action theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; not mere conclusory statements)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (adopted plausibility standard; fair notice and plausible claims)
- Ellul v. Congregation of Christian Bros., 774 F.3d 791 (2d Cir. 2014) (equitable tolling/estoppel standards in § 1983 context)
- McLeod v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 995 F. Supp. 2d 134 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) (six-month statute for hybrid LMRA § 301 claims; tolling absence)
- Spencer v. Holley Central Sch. Dist., 734 F. Supp. 2d 316 (W.D.N.Y. 2010) (First Amendment retaliation standard in employment context)