The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara Chief Judge United States District Court
Plaintiff Rodney Johnson filed the instant action pro se on February 24, 2004, alleging that he was denied an MRI for a period of seven months and that he was terminated on account of his race, color and disability, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"). He filed an amended complaint on May 10, 2005.
Currently before the Court are motions to dismiss by defendants Xerox Corporation ("Xerox"), Health International/SHPS Health Management Solution (now known as SHPS Health Management Solutions, Inc) ("SHPS"), and HealthNow New York, Inc. ("HealthNow').*fn1
For the reasons stated herein, the Court: (1) grants the motions to dismiss on behalf of defendants SHPS and Healthnow, in their entirety, with prejudice;
(2) grants Xerox's motion to dismiss, with prejudice, with regard to plaintiff's MRI claim; and (3) grants, without prejudice, Xerox's motion to dismiss plaintiff's unlawful termination claim.
A. Claims Against SHPS and HealthNow
Plaintiff's claims against SHPS and HealthNow must be dismissed for two reasons.
First, plaintiff's Title VII claim against SHPS and HealthNow must be dismissed because neither of these entities was plaintiff's employer. Under Title VII, a defendant in an employment discrimination action may only be subject to liability if it is the plaintiff-employee's "employer," as defined in the statute. See Arculeo v. On-Site Sales & Marketing, LLC, 425 F.3d 193, 197 (2d Cir. 2005). In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that his employer was Xerox. Because neither SHPS nor HealthNow was plaintiff's employer, neither of them can be held liable under Title VII for employment discrimination.*fn2
Second, plaintiff's Title VII claim against SHPS and HealthNow must be dismissed because neither of these entities was named as a respondent in plaintiff's administrative complaint to the New York Division of Human Rights. (SDHR"). Thus, plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with regard to these two defendants. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.
Plaintiff's MRI claim must be dismissed as against all defendants for two reasons.
First, plaintiff's MRI claim must be dismissed because he did not include such a claim in his administrative complaint to the SDHR. Thus, plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with ...