859 F. Supp. 2d 265
N.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Hamzik sues OPWDD and BDC and multiple employees, asserting federal and state discrimination and related claims; amended complaint followed by cross-motion for a second amended complaint.
- BDC is state-operated; plaintiff alleges gender, age, race, and disability discrimination, equal protection, due process, and retaliation.
- Plaintiff worked as a developmental aide since 2006; dispute centers on January 2010 transfers and seniority, plus alleged retaliatory actions.
- EEOC charge filed April 6, 2010 alleging sex discrimination; later letters referenced additional claims not in the charge.
- Court reasonably consolidates motions to dismiss and the cross-motion to amend; no new defendants added; ruling on proposed second amended complaint.
- Court ultimately dismisses all federal claims with prejudice and declines supplemental jurisdiction for remaining state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the proposed second amended complaint survives dismissal | Hamzik seeks to amend to add claims. | Defendants contend it fails Rule 8/12(b)(6). | Proposed amendment futile; dismissal affirmed. |
| Eleventh Amendment immunity on §1983/ADEA/ADA/NYHRL claims | OPWDD waived immunity. | States cannot be sued for monetary relief; no waiver. | Eleventh Amendment bars claims against OPWDD and official-capacity claims. |
| Exhaustion of administrative remedies for Title VII/ADEA/ADA claims | Exhaustion satisfied via EEOC charge and letters. | Only claims within EEOC charge are exhausted; letters ineffective. | Only Elbrecht transfer Title VII claim exhausted; other claims dismissed for lack of exhaustion. |
| Remaining Title VII claim (Elbrecht transfer) viability | Elbrecht’s earlier transfer shows sex discrimination. | No plausible inference of sex discrimination; no adverse action. | Remaining Title VII claim dismissed. |
| Equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims viability | Plaintiff alleges disparate treatment and retaliation. | Allegations insufficient to show intentional discrimination or adverse action. | Equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Twombly v. Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (concrete factual allegations required)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1908) (prospective injunctive relief against state officers allowed)
- Gollomp v. Spitzer, 568 F.3d 355 (2d Cir. 2009) (Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to state agents/instrumentalities)
- Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (U.S. 2001) (sovereign immunity and ADA scope)