The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-------------------------------------------------------------X
LaSEAN SMITH,
Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-against- 25-CV-283 (NRM) (MMH)
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY;
MICHAEL ROBERTSON, and GENESA
CAMPBELL,
Defendants.
-------------------------------------------------------------X
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Plaintiff LaSean Smith filed this pro se Complaint on January 14, 2025,
alleging employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. See
Compl. at 3, ECF No. 1. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). See IFP Mot., ECF No. 2. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court dismisses the Complaint with leave to amend within 30 days.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, formerly employed by the New York City Housing Authority at the
Glenwood Houses in Brooklyn, New York, utilizes the Court’s employment
discrimination complaint form. Compl. at 3. Plaintiff indicates that the action is filed
pursuant to Title VII based on her gender, id. at 5, and the discriminatory conduct
included “[t]ermination of [her] employment,” “[u]nequal terms and conditions of
[her] employment,” “[r]etaliation,” “[d]efamation of character[,] bullying, [and]
harassment,” id. at 4. However, the Complaint fails to provide any facts that support
1
her claim. Id. at 3–5. The “facts” section of the Court’s employment discrimination
form is completely blank. See id. at 5.
By way of relief, Plaintiff seeks back pay, lost benefits, return to her position
and the removal of defamatory comments from her employee file. Id. at 6. On October
25, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a Notice of Right
to Sue. Id. at 8.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face,” Bell Atlantic 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). At the pleading stage of the
proceeding, the Court must assume the truth of “all well-pleaded, nonconclusory
factual allegations” in the complaint. Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 621 F.3d
111, 124 (2d Cir. 2010). But the Court need not accept as true “legal conclusions.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. In addition, a pro se complaint is to be liberally construed,
and “a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Ceara v. Deacon, 916 F.3d 208,
213 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)).
Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to provide a
short, plain statement of claim, and the facts that give rise to the claim, against each
defendant named so that each defendant has adequate notice of the claims against
them. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. A plaintiff must provide facts sufficient to allow
2
each named defendant “to have a fair understanding of what the plaintiff is
complaining about and to know whether there is a legal basis for recovery.”
Harnage v. Lightner, 916 F.3d 138, 141 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Kittay v. Kornstein,
230 F.3d 531, 541 (2d Cir. 2000)).
When a litigant files a lawsuit in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B), a district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis action where it is
satisfied 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 against a defendant who is
immune from such relief,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)–(iii).
DISCUSSION
Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual
with respect to “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)(1). To establish a Title VII claim, “a plaintiff must show that (1) [s]he is a
member of a protected class; (2) [s]he was qualified for the position [s]he held; (3)
[s]he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the adverse action took place
under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.” Ruiz v. County of
Rockland, 609 F.3d 486, 491–92 (2d Cir. 2010).
“[A]t the initial stage of the litigation . . . the plaintiff does not need substantial
evidence of discriminatory intent,” and need only “sustain a minimal burden of
showing facts suggesting an inference of discriminatory motivation.” Littlejohn v.
City of New York, 795 F.3d 297, 311 (2d Cir. 2015) (emphasis in original).
3
Nevertheless, “a discrimination complaint . . . must [still] 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. and N.J., 768 F.3d
247, 254 (2d Cir. 2014) (alterations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint does not allege any facts to support her claim that
she suffered an adverse employment action. Nor does she allege any facts to support
the inference that any adverse employment action was motivated by discrimination.
See Compl. at 6. In short, Plaintiff does not allege any facts at all to explain or support
the legal claims of discrimination in her Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Title VII
complaint cannot proceed against the New York City Housing Authority for failure
to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
In addition, Title VII does not provide for individual liability; rather, only the
employer may be named. See Patterson v. County of Oneida, 375 F.3d 206, 221 (2d
Cir. 2004). Therefore, Plaintiff’s Title VII complaint cannot proceed against the two
individuals, Michael Robertson and Genesa Campbell, named as defendants, for
failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the complaint, filed in forma pauperis, is
dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Plaintiff’s
application for pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice. ECF No. 3.
In light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court grants Plaintiff 30 days from the
entry of this Memorandum and Order to amend her complaint against the New York
4
City Housing Authority. The amended complaint must include a short and plain
statement of facts sufficient to support a plausible claim that her employer, the New
York City Housing Authority, discriminated against her in violation of Title VII.
Specifically, Plaintiff should include in her Amended Complaint facts that outline
what she believes were the adverse employment actions that her employer took
against her. She must also include facts that show that her employer’s actions were
the result of unlawful discrimination against her, or which support an inference that
the employer’s actions were due to discriminatory intent.
If Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint, it must be captioned “Amended
Complaint” and bear the same docket number as this Memorandum and Order, No.
25-CV-283 (NRM) (MMH). The amended complaint shall replace the original
complaint. That is, the amended complaint must stand on its own without reference
to the original complaint.
All further proceedings shall be stayed for 30 days. If Plaintiff fails to file an
amended complaint within the time allowed or show good cause for an extension of
time, the Clerk of Court shall be directed to enter judgment and close this case.
The Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from
this Memorandum and Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma
pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. Coppedge v. United States,
369 U.S. 438, 444–45 (1962).
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to mail a copy of this Memorandum
and Order along with an employment discrimination complaint form to the pro se
5
Plaintiff and note the mailing on the docket. Plaintiff may contact the City Bar
Justice Center’s Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Project at 212-382-4729, for free,
limited-scope legal assistance.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: April 7, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
6