Mira v. Kingston, 16-4080-cv

Plaintiff Leslie Mira (pro se) sued former employer Platts McGraw Hill Financial alleging Title VII gender and national-origin discrimination; district court dismissed her Title VII claims and denied consolidation with a separate suit against Argus Media.
Mira appealed the November 3, 2016 judgment and sought review of interlocutory orders (denial of consolidation and denial of leave to amend).
Mira argued the Platts and Argus cases were factually and legally connected and should be consolidated.
She also sought to amend to add claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3) alleging race-based animus and a conspiracy involving surveillance.
The district court did not formally rule on amendment requests presented as letters, and dismissed the proposed claims as time-barred or insufficient; the Second Circuit reviewed jurisdiction, consolidation denial, and futility of amendment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to hear appeal	Notice of appeal identified district court judgment dismissing Title VII claims, which should permit review of interlocutory orders	Appeal notice insufficient, contesting scope	Court held notice was sufficient; interlocutory orders merged into final judgment, so appellate jurisdiction exists (Gonzalez; Mickalis Pawn Shop)
Consolidation of Platts and Argus cases	Cases arise from related conduct (meetings between company officers, surveillance concerns) and should be consolidated	No plausible commonality of operative facts or legal issues to justify consolidation	Denial of consolidation affirmed; Mira failed to show factual/legal commonality (In re Repetitive Stress Injury)
Leave to amend to add § 1981 and § 1985(3) claims	Pro se status warrants liberal amendment; letters sought to add race-based and conspiracy claims	Proposed amendments would be futile because allegations are conclusory or lack discriminatory motive	Denial of leave to amend affirmed as futile; alleged comments and surveillance claims insufficient to state § 1981/§ 1985(3) claims (Nielson; Lucente; Gallop)
Timeliness of Title VII claims	(Not developed on appeal) Mira attempted to revive claims in reply brief	Title VII claims were time-barred and not properly contested on appeal	Claims not meaningfully challenged on appeal and thus waived; appellate court did not reconsider timeliness (McBride; LoSacco)

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (notice-of-appeal jurisdictional rule)
City of N.Y. v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 (final judgment brings up interlocutory orders)
In re Repetitive Stress Injury Litig., 11 F.3d 368 (standard for consolidation)
Nielson v. Rabin, 746 F.3d 58 (pro se complaints and leave to amend)
Lucente v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp., 310 F.3d 243 (futility standard for amendment)
Littlejohn v. City of N.Y., 795 F.3d 297 (hostile-work-environment severity/pervasiveness)
Gallop v. Cheney, 642 F.3d 364 (dismissal of factually frivolous or conclusory claims)
Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (framework for hostile-work-environment analysis)