232 F. Supp. 3d 420
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Leon (pro se) applied for a Mental Health Therapy Aid Trainee position at Rockland Psychiatric Center (RPC) in Sept. 2014; RPC personnel (Patricia Soto) told him RPC could not hire him except last on the civil‑service list because he was a public pensioner/retiree.
- Leon contacted the NYS retirement system and civil service, which he says confirmed his retiree status would not prevent hiring; Soto did not respond further and RPC hired other applicants.
- Leon filed an age‑discrimination complaint with the NYS Division of Human Rights (NYSDHR); NYSDHR found insufficient evidence and the EEOC adopted that finding and issued a right‑to‑sue notice.
- Leon sued RPC and Soto in federal court under the ADEA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection and Due Process). Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).
- The court concluded RPC (a state psychiatric center operated by NY Office of Mental Health) is an arm of the state entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and dismissed claims against RPC with prejudice.
- Remaining claims against Soto: Fourteenth Amendment (selective equal protection and procedural due process), ADEA, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL — the court dismissed most claims with varying prejudice and gave Leon 30 days to cure certain deficiencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for RPC | RPC is a proper defendant for federal age and constitutional claims | RPC is an arm of the state and immune from suit in federal court | RPC is an arm of the state; Eleventh Amendment bars Leon's claims against RPC — dismissed with prejudice |
| ADEA liability against Soto (individual and official capacity) | Soto discriminated against Leon based on age by applying a retiree hiring restriction | ADEA does not impose individual liability; state‑official damages barred by Eleventh Amendment | ADEA claims against Soto in individual capacity dismissed; official‑capacity damages barred; prospective injunctive relief via Ex parte Young possible but no authority alleged — ADEA claim dismissed without prejudice |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Equal Protection (selective enforcement) | Leon was treated worse than similarly situated applicants because of age/retiree status | No adequate allegations of similarly situated comparators or discriminatory intent | Age is not a protected class; plaintiff failed to identify adequate comparators or facts supporting selective enforcement — Equal Protection claim dismissed |
| Fourteenth Amendment — Procedural Due Process | Soto deprived Leon of the right to earn a living without due process | Leon was only a prospective applicant with no protected property or liberty interest | Prospective employment does not create a protected property or liberty interest here — Due Process claim dismissed |
| NYSHRL claim | Leon alleges state statutory age discrimination | Defendants note Leon already filed with NYSDHR, which bars a plenary NYSHRL action in court | NYSHRL claim barred because Leon pursued NYSDHR process — dismissed with prejudice |
| NYCHRL claim | City human‑rights protections for age discrimination | NYCHRL applies only within NYC; RPC is in Rockland County | NYCHRL does not apply outside NYC — claim dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (Congress did not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity under the ADEA)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (establishes that state officials may be sued in federal court for prospective injunctive relief to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
- Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (class‑of‑one equal protection theory is inappropriate in public employment context)
- Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (sovereign immunity bars suit against a state by its own citizens absent consent)
- Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (no property interest in mere expectancy of government employment)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (complaint must state plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard requires more than conclusory allegations)
- McGinty v. New York, 251 F.3d 84 (Second Circuit on limits of ADEA suits against states)