Jordan v. Forfeiture Support Associates
928 F. Supp. 2d 588
E.D.N.Y2013Background
- Pro se Yolanda Jordan sues Forfeiture Support Associates under the ADA and Title VII alleging disability, race, and color discrimination.
- Plaintiff began at FSA in 2005 as a record examiner/analyst under a DOJ contract and was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome in 2006.
- She took a six-week disability leave after the diagnosis; after returning, she faced increased duties.
- On August 14, 2009, she was terminated; later background checks and a claimed restoration of clearance are alleged.
- Plaintiff filed an EEOC charge on December 10, 2010; the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter in March 2011; she filed this action in June 2011.
- The court later denied the 12(b)(1) motion, denied the 12(b)(5) motion without prejudice, and granted 12(b)(6) dismissal of race/color Title VII claims with prejudice, while allowing ADA claims to be amended and properly served within 30 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of Title VII race/color claims | Jordan exhausted disability claims but not race/color. | Race/color claims were not exhausted in EEOC charge. | Untimely/exhaustion not satisfied; race/color claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Subject matter jurisdiction vs. exhaustion defense under 12(b)(1) | Rule 12(b)(1) should apply to jurisdiction only. | Exhaustion should be treated as jurisdictional defect. | 12(b)(1) motion denied; exhaustion treated under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Service of process adequacy for FSA (Rule 12(b)(5)) | Certified mail served defendant; receipts show delivery. | Certified mail insufficient for service on an LLC; proper service lacking. | Rule 12(b)(5) denied without prejudice; extension granted to effect proper service. |
| ADA claims sufficiency and timeliness; need to amend | Disability and retaliation claims should survive with proper pleading. | Initial complaint inadequately pleads elements of ADA claims. | ADA claims lack sufficient pleading; leave to amend granted with conditions. |
| Leave to replead and extend time to serve Amended Complaint | Pro se status and potential tolling justify extension. | Extension should not be granted given late EEOC filing and service issues. | Thirty-day extension granted to serve Amended Complaint; leave to replead ADA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763 (2d Cir. 2000) (exhaustion not a jurisdictional prerequisite; precondition to suit)
- Minnette v. Time Warner, Inc., 997 F.2d 1023 (2d Cir. 1993) (tolling of limitations during Rule 4(m) period; timely filing may toll under certain conditions)
- Deravin v. Kerik, 335 F.3d 195 (2d Cir. 2003) (exhaustion and relation to EEOC charge; reasonably related claims)