United States District Court, E.D. New York
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
M. COGAN, District Judge.
se plaintiff Melvina Lake brings this action against her
former employer, The Royster Group, Inc., alleging that she
was terminated in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
(“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34
(“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq.
(“ADA”). Plaintiff's request to proceed
in forma pauperis is granted for the purpose of this
Order. For the reasons set forth below, the complaint is
dismissed, and plaintiff is granted leave to amend her
complaint within 20 days of the date of this Order.
a 64 year-old female, worked for defendant, a staffing
company located in Atlanta, Georgia, as a “contracted
temp” employee from March 30, 2015, to November 12,
2015. Plaintiff submitted an employment-discrimination form
complaint that claims termination of employment, retaliation,
and unlawful and unethical employment practices. Plaintiff
checked off on the form complaint that she was discriminated
on the basis of race, gender/sex, age, and perceived
to the in forma pauperis statute, the Court must
dismiss a complaint if it determines that the action
“(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a
claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Pursuant to
Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff
must provide a short, plain statement of each claim against
each defendant so that each defendant has adequate notice of
the claims against him. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678-79 (“[Rule 8] demands more than an unadorned,
Ricciuti v. N.Y. City Transit Auth., 941 F.2d 119,
123 (2d Cir. 1991) (“[Rule 8] is designed to permit the
defendant to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff
is complaining about and to know whether there is a legal
basis for recovery[.]”).
complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face, ” Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and
“allow the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,
” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although all allegations contained in the complaint are
assumed to be true, this tenet is “inapplicable to
legal conclusions.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In
addition, a pro se complaint is “to be
liberally construed, ” Ahlers v. Rabinowitz,
684 F.3d 53, 60 (2d Cir. 2012), and interpreted “to
raise the strongest arguments” the complaint suggests,
Graham v. Henderson, 89 F.3d 75, 79 (2d Cir. 1996).
VII provides that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment
practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to
discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his 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). The ADEA
establishes that it is “unlawful for an employer . . .
to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against
any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,
conditions or privileges or employment, because of such
individual's age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
Finally, similarly, the ADA protects an employee from
discrimination on the basis of a disability within the
meaning of the ADA.
discrimination complaint . . . must at a minimum assert
nonconclusory factual matter sufficient to nudge its claims
across the line from conceivable to plausible to
proceed.” EEOC v. Port Auth. of N.Y. &
N.J., 768 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2014) (alterations and
internal quotation marks omitted). Here, plaintiff has not
pleaded any facts that would support any plausible inference
of discrimination on the basis of any of her protected
states that she “suffered due to the constant incidents
of harassment & discrimination inflicted by workplace
co-workers influenced and encouraged by the employer.”
Yet plaintiff supplies no facts that could possibly connect
any adverse employment action to even one of her alleged
protected statuses. See Littlejohn v. City of N.Y.,
795 F.3d 297, 311 n. 9 (2d Cir. 2015) (“The facts
required by Iqbal to be alleged in the complaint
need not give plausible support to the ultimate question of
whether the adverse employment action was attributable to
discrimination. They need only give plausible support to a
minimal inference of discriminatory motivation.”). In
circuitous and repetitive fashion across several pages,
plaintiff alleges discriminatory actions and harassment, but
provides no specifics. Thus, the Court is left with
accusation[s], ” which do not meet any pleading
standard, no matter the solicitude the Court must give to a
pro se litigant. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79;
Ahlers, 684 F.3d at 60.
the complaint is dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiffs application for appointment of
counsel is denied without prejudice. In light of plaintiff
s pro se status, she is granted twenty (20) days
leave from the date of this Order to file an amended
complaint. See Cruz v. Gomez, 202 F.3d 593 (2d Cir.
2000). Plaintiffs amended complaint must comply with Rule
8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provide all
relevant dates, and include a short, plain statement of facts
sufficient to support a plausible claim that her former
employer discriminated against her in violation of Title VII,
the ADEA, and the ADA. Plaintiff should attach a legible copy
of the charge she filed with the EEOC, if available. However,
plaintiff cannot rely on exhibits or other documents to
replace a statement of claim.
is advised that the amended complaint will completely replace
the original complaint and that she must title the document,
“Amended Complaint, ” and include the same docket
number as this Order, 17 Civ. 2311.
plaintiff fails to comply with this Order within the time
allowed, the Court shall enter judgment dismissing this
action. No summons shall issue at this time and all further
proceedings shall be stayed for 20 days. The Court certifies
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would
not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma
pauperis status ...