Merisier v. Kings County Hospital, 1:16-cv-07088

Plaintiff Marie Merisier, proceeding pro se, filed an employment discrimination complaint under Title VII against Kings County Hospital.
She alleged differential treatment, bullying/harassment, and that an employee assaulted her on September 23, 2015; she claims administration disciplined her instead of the assailant and refused to produce video footage.
Merisier checked boxes for unequal terms/conditions and retaliation but did not identify any protected class (race, color, sex, religion, national origin) or allege discrimination on that basis.
She reported filing a complaint with the Division of Human Rights, which an investigator closed for lack of evidence.
The Court granted in forma pauperis status for the purpose of the order and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a Title VII claim, but granted leave to amend within 30 days.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint states a Title VII discrimination claim	Merisier alleges she was treated differently, bullied, harassed, disciplined unfairly, and assaulted at work	Kings County Hospital argued (implicitly via record) that no claim is stated because no protected-class-based conduct is alleged	Dismissed for failure to state a Title VII claim because plaintiff did not plead membership in a protected class or facts showing discrimination based on such membership; leave to amend granted
Whether plaintiff pleaded a hostile work environment under Title VII	Plaintiff alleges continuous bullying/harassment and a physical altercation	Defendant implicitly disputes that allegations raise a protected-class-based hostile work environment	Court held abusive conduct must be related to protected-class membership; plaintiff did not plead that nexus, so claim fails
Whether the pro se complaint should be liberally construed and allowed to proceed	Merisier sought relief without counsel and filed an abbreviated form complaint	Hospital relied on the sufficiency of pleaded facts	Court applies liberal construction to pro se filings, grants one opportunity to amend, but requires plausible, nonconclusory allegations tying conduct to a protected class
Whether appeal in forma pauperis should be allowed	Plaintiff sought to proceed without fees	Not argued in detail	Court certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied in forma pauperis for appeal

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standards for pleading; court need not accept legal conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading standard)
Halebian v. Berv, 590 F.3d 195 (principles on accepting factual allegations)
Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (pro se complaints must meet plausibility but are construed liberally)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (liberal construction of pro se filings)
Ruotolo v. I.R.S., 28 F.3d 6 (special solicitude for pro se pleadings)
Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (interpret pro se complaint to raise strongest claims)
Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (leave to amend required if valid claim might be stated)
Brennan v. Metro. Opera Ass'n, 192 F.3d 310 (hostile work environment must be tied to protected-class membership)
Byrnie v. Town of Cromwell, Bd. of Educ., 243 F.3d 93 (elements of a Title VII discrimination claim)
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (standard for certifying appeal not taken in good faith)