ROUSE-BALDWIN v. AFSCME-LOCAL 2318, No. 2:2008cv06345 - Document 4 (D.N.J. 2009)
Court Description: OPINION. Signed by Judge Stanley R. Chesler on 1/15/09. (jd, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY __________________________________________ : ANDREA M. ROUSE-BALDWIN, : : Plaintiff, : : : v. : : AFSCME - LOCAL 2318, : : Defendant. : __________________________________________: Hon. Stanley R. Chesler Civil Action No. 08-6345 (SRC) OPINION CHESLER, District Judge This matter comes before the Court on the application to proceed in forma pauperis made by Plaintiff Andrea M Rouse-Baldwin. The Court has reviewed Plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), grants the application and directs the Clerk to file the Complaint without payment of fees. Section 1915 directs that a Court, on its own motion, must dismiss a complaint, filed pursuant to that statute, which fails to state any valid claim for relief. 28 U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court has accordingly reviewed the Complaint submitted by Plaintiff, and for the reasons that follow, dismisses the Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Complaint is brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for employment discrimination. It suffers from two fatal legal defects. First, the Defendant, AFSCME - Local 2318 is not alleged to have been Plaintiff s employer. Rather, it appears from Plaintiff s allegations of Defendant s wrongdoing - specifically, that it failed to properly represent her in 1 connection with hearings following her allegedly wrongful termination on July 27, 2007 - that the Defendant is a labor union to which Plaintiff belongs or belonged. The Complaint submitted does not identify the employer which allegedly terminated her illegally. Title VII prohibits unlawful employment practices only by employers. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). When a Plaintiff brings a claim under Title VII against a party who is not alleged to have been an employer, dismissal is appropriate. Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002). Second, Plaintiff s statement of the acts complained of does not include any acts of employment discrimination. Under these circumstances, this Court finds that the Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. For these reasons, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court will dismiss the Complaint. s/ Stanley R. Chesler Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J. Dated: January 15, 2009 2
]]>
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.
