Santos v. NYCBOE
1:17-cv-06467
E.D.N.YDec 12, 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff Agnes Zaballa Santos filed an employment-discrimination form complaint against NYC Board of Education and various individuals; case transferred to EDNY and IFP status granted for this order.
- Complaint was incoherent and largely handwritten; alleges she is "Philippine American," references a 2000 accident (disability), withheld pay, and interactions with the United Federation of Teachers, but gives no clear facts about employment or specific adverse actions.
- Plaintiff checked that an EEOC Right-to-Sue notice was received but did not attach any such letter or otherwise establish administrative exhaustion.
- Court reviewed whether claims could plausibly state Title VII (race/national origin) or ADA (disability) claims given the form and limited allegations.
- Court concluded the complaint fails Rule 8 and the federal pleading plausibility standard and does not show exhaustion of administrative remedies.
- Dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to amend within 30 days; amended complaint must plead facts supporting each claim and attach a right-to-sue letter; appeal IFP status denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Santos pleaded a plausible Title VII claim | Santos alleges discrimination as a "Philippine American" and references employment grievances | Defendants argue (implicitly via motion to dismiss framework) complaint lacks basic factual allegations tying adverse actions to protected class | Dismissed for failure to state a Title VII claim; leave to amend granted |
| Whether Santos pleaded a plausible ADA claim | Santos references a 2000 accident and disability | Defendants (procedural posture) contend pleading lacks facts showing disability, qualification, or causal adverse action | Dismissed for failure to state an ADA claim; leave to amend granted |
| Whether administrative exhaustion occurred | Santos checked receipt of EEOC Right-to-Sue notice on form | No right-to-sue letter was attached or otherwise proven | Plaintiff failed to show exhaustion; must attach right-to-sue letter in any amendment |
| Whether dismissal should be with or without prejudice | Santos is pro se and may possibly state a claim if clarified | Court must enforce pleading standards but give liberal construction to pro se filings | Complaint dismissed without prejudice and plaintiff given 30 days to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (clarifies plausibility and rejects bare assertions)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (pro se complaints construed liberally)
- Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006) (pro se pleadings given strongest interpretation)
- Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66 (pro se complaints must still meet plausibility standard)
- Cuoco v. Moritsugu, 222 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2000) (leave to amend required if valid claim might be stated)
- Vega v. Hempstead Union Free School Dist., 801 F.3d 72 (elements of Title VII prima facie case)
- Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 531 F.3d 127 (elements of ADA prima facie case)
- Deravin v. Kerik, 335 F.3d 195 (exhaustion/EEOC filing required before suit)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (good-faith standard for appeals IFP denied)