Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Johnson v. DCM Erectors, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York

April 21, 2017

DERRICK JOHNSON, Plaintiff,
v.
DCM ERECTORS, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          P. Kevin Castel United States District Judge

         Plaintiff Derrick Johnson filed a pro se action against defendant DCM Erectors, Inc., (“DCM”) alleging that defendant terminated his employment on the basis of his race, thereby violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e - 2000e-17, the New York State Human Rights Law (the “NYSHRL”), N.Y. Exec. Law §§ 290 - 97, and the New York City Human Rights Law (the “NYCHRL”), N.Y. City Admin. Code §§ 8-101 - 131.

         The discovery period in this case is complete, and the defendant has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendant seeks summary judgment on plaintiff's Title VII, NYSHRL and NYCHRL claims on the basis that they are untimely. Alternatively, defendant asks the court to dismiss the Title VII claim and decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state and city law claims. Defendant has also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(v), Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Court's inherent power to sanction litigants based on the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with court orders. The plaintiff has not filed opposition papers and the Court reviews both motions unopposed. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint will be dismissed.

         Mailed to Mr. Johnson 4/21/2017

         BACKGROUND

         According to the complaint, plaintiff was a welder employed by DCM. He had been certified as a welder since 1994 and a member of his union since 1998. He alleges that, on June 29, 2012, DCM discharged him from employment without warning. According to plaintiff, DCM's stated reasons for firing plaintiff were that he “didn't get along well with others” and he “took too long to finish a project.” Plaintiff alleges that these reasons were false, that he was more than qualified to perform his job, and that he was not late to his job nor missed any days of work. Rather, he claims that DCM terminated his employment because he was African-American.

         Plaintiff asserts that he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) on August 2, 2012. However, as of the filing of his pro se complaint with this Court, on July 8, 2015, plaintiff claims he never received a “notice-of-right-to-sue” letter from the EEOC. Plaintiff is seeking $300, 000 in compensatory damages as well as back and front pay.

         DISCUSSION

         I. Summary Judgment Standard.

         Summary judgment “shall” be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. A fact is material if it “might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law . . . .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). On a motion for summary judgment, the court must “construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and resolve all ambiguities and draw all reasonable inferences against the movant.” Delaney v. Bank of Am. Corp., 766 F.3d 163, 167 (2d Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). It is the initial burden of the movant to come forward with evidence on each material element of his claim or defense, demonstrating that he is entitled to relief, and the evidence on each material element must be sufficient to entitle the movant to relief in its favor as a matter of law. Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co., 373 F.3d 241, 244 (2d Cir. 2004).

         When a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, as it is here, courts “must review the motion . . . and determine from what it has before it whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law, ” because “the district court may not grant the motion without first examining the moving party's submission to determine if it has met its burden of demonstrating that no material issue of fact remains for trial.” Id. at 246, 244 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Moreover, in determining whether the moving party has met this burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue for trial, the district court may not rely solely on the statement of undisputed facts contained in the moving party's Rule 56.1 statement. It must be satisfied that the citation to evidence in the record supports the assertion.” Id. at 244.

         Courts afford special solicitude to pro se litigants confronted with motions for summary judgment. See Graham v. Lewinski, 848 F.2d 342, 344 (2d Cir. 1988). However, a party's pro se status does not alter the obligation placed on the party opposing summary judgment to come forward with evidence demonstrating that there is a genuine dispute regarding material fact. Miller v. New York City Health & Hospital Corp., No. 00 Civ. 140 (PKC), 2004 WL 1907310, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2004). As a pro se litigant, the plaintiff was served with the notice required by Local Rule 56.2, informing him of the nature of a summary judgment motion and the manner in which it could be opposed. (Dkt. 70). Although plaintiff has submitted no opposition papers, the Court draws every reasonable inference in his favor. Delaney, 766 F.3d at 167.

         II. Title VII Claim.

         Generally speaking, plaintiffs are required to file a timely charge with the EEOC before proceeding with a Title VII claim in court. See Pietras v. Bd. of Fire Comm'rs of Farmingville Fire Dist., 180 F.3d 468, 473 (2d Cir. 1999); Francis v. City of New York, 235 F.3d 763, 768 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[I]t remains the case that exhaustion of administrative remedies through the EEOC stands as an essential element of Title VII's statutory scheme, and one with which defendants are entitled to insist that plaintiffs comply.”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). If the EEOC elects not to file a suit on ...


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.