388 F. Supp. 3d 257
W.D.N.Y.2019Background
- Plaintiff Bernice C. Malcolm, a 61-year-old African-American CASE employee of Rochester City School District (RCSD), filed this pro se employment-discrimination suit alleging race, age and related employment retaliation/harassment claims against RCSD and four individual supervisors.
- Malcolm previously filed substantially identical claims in a prior federal action (Malcolm I) and multiple NYSDHR/EEOC administrative charges; two NYSDHR charges found probable cause and remain pending.
- RCSD restructured and laid off CASE positions in March 2017; Malcolm was placed on a seven-year preferred eligibility list and was recalled and rehired in November 2017.
- The instant complaint largely duplicates Malcolm I (many paragraphs and causes of action are verbatim).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),(2),(4),(5),(6). Plaintiff requested a stay pending administrative proceedings and sought leave to amend.
- The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, denied the stay request, and denied leave to amend as futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duplication / claim preclusion between Malcolm I and this suit | Malcolm repeats same factual and legal claims in a new action | Dismiss as duplicative; parties, claims, relief same as Malcolm I | Court dismissed identical claims against RCSD and Deane-Williams as duplicative |
| Personal liability under Title VII and ADEA against individual defendants | Individual supervisors are liable for discrimination | Title VII and ADEA do not permit individual liability | Court dismissed Title VII and ADEA claims against Pauly, Simpson, Root |
| Individual liability under NYSHRL and § 1983 / NY Const. (equal protection) | Individual defendants personally participated in discriminatory acts | Plaintiff fails to plead direct, personal involvement or nexus to constitutional violation | Court dismissed NYSHRL and § 1983 / NY Const. claims against Pauly, Simpson, Root for lack of factual allegations showing personal involvement |
| Breach of contract | RCSD breached an employment/contractual obligation | No pleaded individual employment contract; collective bargaining does not support a private breach claim | Court dismissed breach claim for failure to plead any contract or plausible breach |
| Stay of federal proceedings pending NYSDHR/EEOC resolution | Stay needed to avoid duplicative litigation and injustice while NYSDHR matters pending | Plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies; public interest disfavors stay here | Court denied stay because claims were unexhausted and complaint failed to state a claim |
| Leave to amend | Malcolm seeks to amend and add factual allegations | Amendment would be futile and no proposed amended complaint was provided | Court denied leave to amend as futile and for failure to submit a proposed amended complaint |
Key Cases Cited
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308 (standard for considering documents incorporated into pleadings)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading requirements and legal conclusions)
- Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133 (duplicative federal suits may be dismissed or stayed)
- Sheppard v. Beerman, 18 F.3d 147 (accept allegations as true on Rule 12(b)(6))
- Johnson v. Newburgh Enlarged Sch. Dist., 239 F.3d 246 (personal involvement standards for § 1983 liability)
- Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (analysis of equal protection claims in employment context)
- Ifill v. New York State Court Officers Ass'n, 655 F. Supp. 2d 382 (collective bargaining agreements and breach claims)