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.

Lake v. The Royster Group, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. New York

May 13, 2017

MELVINA LAKE, Plaintiff,
v.
THE ROYSTER GROUP, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          COGAN, District Judge.

         By Memorandum Decision and Order dated April 26, 2017, familiarity with which is assumed, this Court dismissed plaintiff's employment discrimination complaint with leave to amend. The Court determined that there were no factual allegations showing that plaintiff, because of her membership in a protected class, was a victim of the kind of discrimination prohibited by the various federal statutes that she cited. She has filed a 58-page handwritten amended complaint that still does not satisfy the pleading requirements discussed in this Court's prior Order. Although plaintiff asserts that she has a Master's Degree in social work, the handwriting of the document she has submitted is so illegible and the structure is so incoherent that I cannot discern a claim for relief.

         The most useful part of plaintiff's amended complaint is the annexation of her termination letter, as it refers to some background facts and gives me at least part of her former employer's perspective. Pursuant to that letter, it appears that defendant provides some kind of contract employee services to the federal government, particularly, in this instance, the CDC. The termination letter states as follows:

Your employment is terminated for cause as a result of a series of complaints and information received by the government that they believe creates a hostile work environment and prevents you from being a good fit in accordance with the contract. The government has a strict policy against disruptive behavior that impacts daily operations of the CDC facility. Therefore, they have instituted a directive for your removal. This decision was based on concerns that the Government has, which negatively impact your ability to be successful in your role as a team member of the Care Ambassador team.

         Beyond this, the few factual allegations that I can glean from this pleading are as follows:

1. Plaintiff was a 64-year-old African-American employee who worked for defendant for about six months.
2. There is a “program manager” named William Klein (I am not at all sure of the spelling of his last name; it could be “Chrein” or “Clein”), a white Caucasian male, to whom plaintiff made one or more reports of sexual harassment but plaintiff does not consider his responsive action adequate. The specifics of her report or reports to Klein are either not set out or are set out too illegibly for me to know what they are, although plaintiff asserts that they “clearly suggested sexual harassment.” 3. Plaintiff attended a four-day training seminar. There were, at least, three people at the seminar: a “Chinese/Korean female;” an “unknown, unauthorized male individual” who plaintiff observed on two occasions; and an “older civilian male employee of the federal funding organization.” All participated in harassment that is not described or legible, except as set forth below.
4. The “Chinese/Korean” female engaged in “persistent and inappropriate” conduct during the seminar, although I cannot discern any specifics about this conduct. The “older male civilian” made a comment about someone's breast size, perhaps referring to plaintiff. Klein's report in response to plaintiff's complaint to him only addressed the “older male civilian.” 5. The “Chinese/Korean female” was terminated after a “bizarre” “fugitivelike chase of her across the airport” involving “injury to law enforcement officers.” 6. An “African-American male, ” possibly one of the three individuals who attended the seminar, circulated “untruths in the workplace” that “he sleeps with me.” 7. Klein falsely accused plaintiff of making “highly sex charged statements.” Klein himself was a participant in the sexual harassment, although there is no description of what he did or what the harassment was.
8. Much of plaintiff's complaint stems from statements by Klein or defendant in response to her EEOC administrative claim, which plaintiff considers false, but there are no legible specifics set forth.
9. Klein referred to plaintiff's complaints as “delusional” to others in the company, and perhaps to the EEOC. She thinks she is a calm person who has never had a problem in the workplace before. Plaintiff was terminated for disruptive behavior but plaintiff disputes engages in such behavior.
10. Her co-workers, consisting at least of two younger, female peers, sent emails also accusing her of this but they are false. Plaintiff has not seen these emails.
11. In response to her filing her EEOC claim, defendant tried to ostracize her from the workplace but she did not feel ostracized.
12. Plaintiff has a “perceived disability, ” but the complaint does not identify what it is, at least not legibly.
13. Klein discriminated against plaintiff because of her age by not considering it in evaluating her sexual ...

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.