Stokes v. Bridge Street Development Corp. et al, No. 1:2012cv05713 - Document 4 (E.D.N.Y. 2012)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, Pltff is directed to file an amended complaint and include a statement of claim to support both her Title VII and ADEA claims within 20 days from the entry of this Order. If pltff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned "AMENDED COMPLAINT" and bear the docket number 12-cv-5713 (BMC). The amended complaint must be served on defts and shall completely replace the original complaint. Furthermore, pltff should attach to her amended complai nt, a copy of the charge of discrimination she filed on or about 9/28/10 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Although pltff paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 USC sec. 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. (Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 11/27/2012) c/m with Unpublished Decision by chambers. (Galeano, Sonia)

Download PDF

¢ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~ EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YO ---------- X ------------------------------------------------ANGELA STOKES, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, -againstBRIDGE STREET DEVELOPMENT CORP.; RHONDA A. LEWIS, Defendants. * NOV 2 9 2012 BROOKLYN OFFICE ----------------------------------------------------------- X COGAN, District Judge. Plaintiff pro se filed the instant complaint alleging violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 ("ADEA''), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence this action. For the reasons set forth below, the Court directs plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 20 days of the entry of this Order. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that she was hired by defendants to work as a community organizer, but that she was required to work as a property manager without additional salary or title for this position. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Rhonda Lewis denied plaintiff's requests for training and certification as a property manager, but that "other employees much younger and all lighter skinned" received training and certifications for their positions. Plaintiff states that she is a dark-skinned African-American and over 40 years old. On April 22, 2010, plaintiff submitted her resignation, but she alleges that "she was asked to stay to complete the projects and agreed due to tenant[s] relying on me." The last date of plaintiffs employment with defendants is unclear. * l ¢ STANDARD OF REVIEW A complaint must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atlantic Corn. v. Twombly. 550 U.S. 544,570, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974 (2007). A claim will have facial plausibility "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,678-79, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). As the Supreme Court explained, the plausibility standard "does not require detailed factual allegations, but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." 556 U.S. at 678. A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" will not do. Twombly. 550 U.S. at 555. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertions" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Id. at 557. It is axiomatic that pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than pleadings drafted by attorneys, and the Court is required to liberally construe plaintiff's complaint and interpret the allegations to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007); Triestrnan v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2006). DISCUSSION Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual with respect to "compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To establish a prima facie case of Title VII discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: (1) she is a member of a protected class, (2) she was qualified for the position she held, and (3) suffered an adverse employment action (4) under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination. Ruiz v. County of Rockland 609 F.3d 486,491 (2d Cir. 2010); Joseph v. North Shore University Hosp., 2 No. 08 CV 3799, 2011 WL 573582, at* II (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2011). The ADEA prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual over 40 years old, in the terms, conditions and privilege of employment on the basis of age. 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.; see Gorzvnski v. JetBlue Airways Com., 596 F.3d 93 (2d Cir. 2010). In her entire complaint consisting of 71 pages, plaintiff provides only a passing reference to any discriminatory conduct- that she did not receive the training and certifications that "other employees much younger and all lighter skinned" received. The remainder of her complaint sets forth plaintiff's largely unsuccessful efforts to obtain training for the positions she held. Therefore, plaintiff has failed to properly plead a claim under Title VII or the ADEA insofar as she has not alleged sufficient facts to show that she was discriminated against because of her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or age. Accordingly, plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint containing detailed facts in support of her Title VII and ADEA claims, including specific allegations of what defendants did or said to plaintiff, the date of such conversations or conduct, and the circumstances surrounding such plaintiffs relevant interactions with defendants. Furthermore, there is no liability against individual employees, such as her supervisor, defendant Lewis, under either Title VII or ADEA. See Wrighten v. Glowski, 232 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted); Cherrv v. Toussaint, 50 F. App'x 476 (2d Cir. 2002). Defendant Lewis is therefore dismissed. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint and include a statement of claim to support both her Title VII and ADEA claims within 20 days from the entry of this Order. If plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it shall be captioned "AMENDED COMPLAINT" 3 and bear the docket number 12 Civ. 5713 (BMC). The amended complaint must be served on defendants and shall completely replace the original complaint. Furthermore, plaintiff should attach to her amended complaint, a copy of the charge of discrimination she filed on or about September 28, 20 I 0 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Although plaintiff paid the filing fee to commence this action, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § !915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of any appeal. Coppedge v. United States, 369 u.s. 438 (1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: Brooklyn, New York November 27, 2012 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.