Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tinsley v. Town of Brookhaven Dept. of Public Safety

United States District Court, E.D. New York

February 24, 2017


          For Plaintiff: Meredith M. Tinsley, pro se

          For Defendants: David M. Cohen, Esq. Cooper, Sapir, & Cohen, P.C.


          JOANNA SEYBERT, U.S.D.J.

         On December 10, 2014, plaintiff Meredith Tinsley (“Plaintiff”) commenced this employment discrimination action against the Town of Brookhaven Department of Public Safety (“Defendant” or “the Town”). She alleges that Defendant discriminated against her in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss (Docket Entry 19.) For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.


         I. Factual Background[1]

         Plaintiff was employed by the Town as a public safety officer. (Am. Compl. at 1.)[2] She alleges that she was “forced out of work” by Director Mike Scholsberg (“Director Scholsberg”) and the Town in July 2013 and discriminated against based on her race, color, gender, national origin, and disability. (Am. Compl. at 2, 5.) She alleges that after she was terminated, the pay rate for public safety officers increased, and she would have received the pay raise if she had not been terminated. (Am. Compl. at 2.) Plaintiff further alleges that the Town failed to provide training. (Am. Compl. at 5.) She requests the dismissal of Director Scholsberg, Commissioner Peter O'Leary, and Sergeant Britch, as well as compensation from the Town.[3] (Am. Compl. at 2.) In addition, Plaintiff requests a promotion to Lieutenant. (Am Compl. at 2.) She contends that the Town continues to retaliate against her and her parents' business. (Am. Compl. at 5.)

         II. Procedural History

         Plaintiff filed her Complaint on December 10, 2014. (Compl., Docket Entry 1.) Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint on May 19, 2015. (Mot., Docket Entry 9.) On March 8, 2016, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss but granted Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint. Tinsley v. Town of Brookhaven, 14-CV-7277, 2016 WL 901676, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2016). The Court held that dismissal was warranted because “[t]he Complaint d[id] not contain any facts that provide notice of the conduct at issue in this lawsuit.” Tinsley, 2016 WL 901676, at *2.

         Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint on June 13, 2016. (Am. Compl.) Defendant filed a letter motion to dismiss on June 15, 2016, arguing that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was untimely; however, the Court denied the motion without prejudice. (Letter Mot., Docket Entry 16; Order, June 22, 2016.) Thereafter, on July 6, 2016, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and/or lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Def.'s Mot., Docket Entry 19.) Plaintiff filed her opposition on August 11, 2016. (Pl.'s Opp., Docket Entry 21.)

         On the first page of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, she states “Listed chronologically are the events that occurred to myself while on the job as a public safety officer . . . .” (Am. Compl. at 1.) The Amended Complaint contains a brief “Statement of Claim” primarily outlining the requested relief and a form employment discrimination complaint. In the section provided to detail relevant facts about the case in the form complaint, Plaintiff merely states “See Attached Sheets.” Attached to the Amended Complaint are: (1) a memorandum from the Town regarding “Bang-Ins”; (2) a Notice of Determination from the New York State Department of Labor regarding unemployment benefits; (3) a notification from Bank of America that Plaintiff's bank account was overdrawn; (4) Plaintiff's 2013 W-2 form issued by the Town; (5) a right to sue letter from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”); (6) a letter from the New York State and Local Retirement System; (7) a Determination after Investigation, a Final Investigation Report and Basis of Determination and a letter from the New York State Division of Human Rights; (8) a letter from Plaintiff to Defendant's Law Office discussing scheduling issues Plaintiff experienced at work and a dispute between Plaintiff and Sgt. Ed Birtch; (9) a Miscellaneous Report, Vehicle Inspection Form and bi-weekly time record related to Plaintiff's dismissal from work for wearing shorts; (10) a letter from CSEA discussing an allegation that Plaintiff's employer did not allow her to wear shorts at work, notwithstanding her diagnosis with Lyme's disease; and (11) an application to proceed in forma pauperis.[4] (Am. Compl. at 8-32.)


         I. Legal Standard

         A. R ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.