McLeod v. the Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154

Pro se plaintiff Easter S. McLeod filed a discrimination complaint in S.D.N.Y. alleging sexual harassment by supervisors at The Jewish Guild for the Blind (JGB), using the court’s pro se form.
On the form, McLeod checked Title VII but did not check boxes for the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) or New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL); her handwritten narrative, however, described sex-based harassment and identified individual supervisors as perpetrators.
The district court dismissed claims against individual defendants sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (individuals not liable under Title VII) and ordered JGB added to the caption.
The district court treated McLeod as suing only under federal law (Title VII), dismissed non-Title VII bases, and later granted summary judgment for JGB on the remaining Title VII claims.
McLeod appealed, arguing her factual allegations should have been construed to assert state and city claims and to preserve claims against individual supervisors under NYSHRL/NYCHRL.
The Second Circuit reviewed whether a pro se litigant forfeits state/city claims by failing to check form blanks and whether the district court properly dismissed the individual defendants and hostile-work-environment claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a pro se plaintiff forfeits state and city discrimination claims by failing to check corresponding boxes on a court form	McLeod: her handwritten factual allegations sufficiently plead NYSHRL/NYCHRL claims despite unchecked boxes	JGB: checking the Title VII box and not the state/city boxes shows intent to sue only under federal law	Court: Pro se pleadings must be liberally construed; factual allegations required the district court to read NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims into the complaint despite form omissions
Whether individual supervisors can be liable in this action	McLeod sought to sue individuals based on factual allegations of supervisor misconduct	JGB: under Title VII individuals are not liable, so claims against individuals are improper	Court: Dismissal of individual defendants was erroneous because NYSHRL/NYCHRL permit suits against individuals; district court should have construed complaint to include those claims
Whether the hostile work environment claim should have been dismissed	McLeod alleged sexually suggestive comments and related harassment supporting a hostile work environment claim	JGB argued summary judgment on the hostile work environment claim was proper under Title VII standards	Court: reversal as to dismissal of hostile work environment claim; NYCHRL/NYSHRL standards may be more favorable and district court erred in narrowing claims to Title VII only

Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489 (2d Cir.) (courts must liberally construe pro se submissions)
Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636 (2d Cir.) (protect pro se litigants from inadvertent forfeiture of rights)
Albert v. Carovano, 851 F.2d 561 (2d Cir.) (failure to cite correct statute does not affect claim merits; factual allegations control)
Mihalik v. Credit Agricole Cheuvreux N. Am., Inc., 715 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (NYCHRL hostile-work-environment standard differs from Title VII)
Feingold v. New York, 366 F.3d 138 (2d Cir.) (NYSHRL/NYCHRL permit suits against individual supervisors)
Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc., 496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir.) (state/local statutes of limitations differ from federal law)
Desardouin v. City of Rochester, 708 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.) (election-of-remedies principles for NYSHRL/NYCHRL administrative filings)
Dunton v. Suffolk County, State of New York, 729 F.2d 903 (2d Cir.) (recognition of claims can preserve timeliness for later state-court filing)