Vlad-Berindan v. Mta

LUCIA VLAD-BERINDAN, Plaintiff, v. MTA NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, MARIE STANLEY, ESQ., JEAN DOE, ESQ., and JOHN DOE, ESQ., Defendants.

14 Civ. 0675 (RJS) (JCF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

October 7, 2014

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, U.S.D.J.:

Lucia Vlad-Berindan brings this employment discrimination action pro se pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (the "ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., alleging that the defendants -- the New York City Transit Authority (the "Transit Authority"), Marie Stanley, and two other unnamed attorneys -- failed to hire her because of her race, national origin, age, and disability. She further alleges that the defendants retaliated against her for asserting her rights under the ADA, posted a deceptive job advertisement, and sought to incorrectly classify paralegals as independent contractors. The defendants move to dismiss all counts pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For the reasons that follow, I recommend that the plaintiff's complaint be dismissed without prejudice.

Background¹

A. Factual Allegations

Ms. Vlad-Berindan holds an Associate of Applied Science degree in Paralegal Studies and was, at the time relevant to her claims, pursing a Bachelor of Science degree in Legal Studies at the New York City College of Technology ("City Tech"). (Attachment to Complaint for Employment Discrimination ("Compl."), ¶ 1; Affirmation of Lucia Vlad-Berindan in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss dated Sept. 5, 2014 ("Vlad-Berindan Aff.") at 1-2). She self-identifies as a white person of Romanian national origin. At the time when the alleged employment action occurred, she was fifty-four years old. (Complaint for Employment Discrimination ("Compl. Form"), ¶ II(D)). She also self-identifies as having a disability resulting from a recent surgery, which rendered her unable to lift more than ten pounds of weight or to stand for prolonged periods of time. (Compl. Form, ¶ II(D); Compl., ¶ 10).

One of the requirements for Ms. Vlad-Berindan's Legal Studies degree was that she complete a 160-hour internship in a law office approved by her school. (Compl., ¶¶ 1, 6; Vlad-Berindan Aff. at2). City Tech has an arrangement with the Transit Authority (as well as several other "partner" offices) under which the Transit Authority provides internship opportunities to the college's students. (Vlad-Berindan Aff. at 2). In February 2013, Ms. Vlad-Berindan submitted an application for an unpaid internship to Ms. Stanley, an attorney in the Transit Authority Torts Division (Compl., ¶¶ 2-4; Vlad-Berindan Aff. at 2), intending to fulfill her college requirement through the internship. (Compl., ¶ 6).

On February 13, 2013, Ms. Vlad-Berindan was interviewed by three Transit Authority attorneys -- Ms. Stanley and two other individuals identified as "Jean Doe, Esq." and "John Doe, Esq." (Compl., ¶¶ 3-5, 12). She does not provide any information regarding the content of her first interview, which was with Ms. Doe. (Compl., ¶ 4).

During her second interview, Ms. Stanley informed Ms. Vlad-Berindan that the office was hiring for two positions, an unpaid internship and a one-year paralegal-contractor position, which was to pay ten dollars per hour. (Compl., ¶ 5; Vlad-Berindan Aff. at 2). While Ms. Vlad-Berindan initially indicated that she was only applying for the internship, she subsequently agreed during the interview (on Ms. Stanley's suggestion) to be considered for both, with the intention of first completing her 160-hour internship requirement and then continuing to work as a paid paralegal-contractor. (Compl., ¶¶ 5-9). Ms. Stanley suggested that Ms. Vlad-Berindan would work for fewer than eight hours per day as a paralegal-contractor because the position was for a limited numberof hours per year. (Compl., ¶ 8).

Ms. Vlad-Berindan disclosed to Ms. Stanley during the interview that she had recently undergone surgery and, as a result, was unable to work more than six hours per day. (Compl., ¶ 9). She told Ms. Stanley that she planned to work a few hours per day until her health improved. (Compl., ¶ 10). She also disclosed that she was not able to lift heavy objects due to the recent surgery. (Compl., ¶ 10). Ms. Stanley "[t]hen . . . asked [the] plaintiff when she could start working," and "seemed to like [the] plaintiff." (Compl., ¶ 11).

Ms. Vlad-Berindan was next interviewed by Mr. Doe. (Compl., ¶¶ 12-13). Mr. Doe "asked [] the same questions as the previous two interviewers." (Compl., ¶ 13). Additionally, he asked Ms. Vlad-Berindan what country she was from, told her that he had other acquaintances from Romania, and volunteered that he was from Nigeria. (Compl., ¶ 13). "Then he asked [Ms. Vlad-Berindan] if she speaks French, and for a while [the] interview was in French." (Compl., ¶ 13). Ms. Vlad-Berindan states that Mr. Doe "seemed to be very nice" (Compl., ¶ 13), but at one point "turned mad" when discussing the suddenness of his last paralegal's departure, emphasizing that it was important that Ms. Vlad-Berindan be willing to commit to a full year of work (Compl., ¶ 14). Mr. Doe and Ms. Vlad-Berindan discussed the arrangement proposed by Ms. Stanley, under which Ms. Vlad-Berindan would complete the 160-hour internship prior to beginning her part-time work as a paralegal-contractor. (Compl., ¶¶ 14-15).

Although Ms. Stanley indicated to Ms. Vlad-Berindan that she would call her about the positions by 5:00 p.m. the day of the interview, she did not contact the plaintiff thereafter. (Compl., ¶ 16). Ms. Vlad-Berindan called Ms. Stanley's office, but did not receive a response. (Compl., ¶ 16). Ms. Vlad-Berindan's classmates later informed her that a new advertisement for positions at the Transit Authority had been posted at their college. (Compl., ¶ 20).

Ms. Vlad-Berindan states that the three lawyers who interviewed her were all "non white" (Compl., ¶ 22), and that "during her interview with the [Transit Authority] she did not see any white employee[s] in the offices where she was, including paralegals she was introduced to" (Compl., ¶ 23). She "believes that after she left the interview, the three non white . . . interviewers decided that [she] was not good enough for them because [she] was[] too weak and disabling [sic] [,] too white and blonde, too over 40 years old [sic] and too East European [] to work[,] learn[, and] practice as an intern paralegal [for] 160 hours in their office" (Compl., ¶ 22), and that "all or some of her interviewer[s] do[] not like white people to work with" (Compl., ¶ 23). Ms. Vlad-Berindan notes that "paralegal[s] need[] to lift and [] sometime[s carry] very heavy files," and alleges that she would have required a rolling shelf and document case to accommodate her disability, had she been hired.² (Compl., ¶ 29). She furtheralleges that the Transit Authority always intended to hire one person to fill both the intern position and the paralegal-contractor position, despite having posted two separate employment opportunities (Compl., ¶¶ 27, 46), and that they intended to improperly classify the paralegal-contractor as an independent contractor to evade taxes (Compl., ¶¶ 27, 48).

B. Procedural History

On July 26, 2013, Ms. Vlad-Berindan filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") regarding the defendants' alleged discriminatory conduct. (Compl. Form, ¶ III(A)). The EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter, which Ms. Vlad-Berindan received on November 1, 2013. (Compl. Form, ¶ III(B)). On January 27, 2014, Ms. Vlad-Berindan filed this lawsuit. She seeks an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. (Compl., § IV).

Discussion

A. Legal Standard

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept as true all well-pleaded facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam); DiFolco v. MSNBC Cable L.L.C., 622 F.3d 104, 110-11 (2d Cir. 2010). A complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, but it must contain more than mere "'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,555 (2007)). Where the complaint's factual allegations permit the court to infer only that it is possible, but not plausible, that misconduct occurred, the complaint fails to meet the requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 679.

Though a plaintiff may plead facts alleged upon information and belief "where the belief is based on factual information that makes the inference of culpability plausible," Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2010), such allegations must be "accompanied by a statement of the facts upon which the belief is founded," Prince v. Madison Square Garden, 427 F. Supp. 2d 372, 385 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than those drafted by attorneys. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); Boykin v. KeyCorp, 521 F.3d 202, 213-14 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94). Pleadings of pro se parties should be read "'to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.'" Kevilly v. New York, 410 F. App'x 371, 374 (2d Cir. 2010) (quoting Brownell v. Krom, 446 F.3d 305, 310 (2d Cir. 2006)). Even after the Supreme Court's ruling in Iqbal, which imposed heightened pleading standards for all complaints, pro se complaints are to be liberally construed. See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, dismissal of a pro se...