McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, No. 15-2898-cv
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Per Curiam |
| Citation | 864 F.3d 154 |
| Parties | Easter S. MCLEOD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The JEWISH GUILD FOR THE BLIND, Defendant-Appellee, Dr. Alan R. Morse, CEO Executive Office, Goldie Dersh, VIP Behavioral Health Services, Psychiatric Clinic, Melissa Farber, VIP Human Resources, Donald Dettmer, Program Coordinator, Defendants. |
| Docket Number | August Term, 2016,No. 15-2898-cv |
| Decision Date | 19 July 2017 |
864 F.3d 154
Easter S. MCLEOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The JEWISH GUILD FOR THE BLIND, Defendant-Appellee,
Dr. Alan R. Morse, CEO Executive Office, Goldie Dersh, VIP Behavioral Health Services, Psychiatric Clinic, Melissa Farber, VIP Human Resources, Donald Dettmer, Program Coordinator, Defendants.
No. 15-2898-cv
August Term, 2016
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Argued: March 29, 2017
Decided: July 19, 2017
Adrienne B. Koch (Elan R. Dobbs and Joseph Weiner, on the brief), Katsky Korins LLP, New York, NY for Plaintiff-Appellant Easter S. McLeod.
Ravindra K. Shaw (Jennifer B. Courtian, on the brief), Jackson Lewis P.C., New York, NY for Defendant-Appellee The Jewish Guild for the Blind.
Before: Hall, Lynch, and Droney, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
Plaintiff-appellant, Easter S. McLeod, appeals from a judgment entered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Pauley and Woods, JJ. ). This appeal raises the question whether a pro se litigant forfeits her claims under New York state and local discrimination law where she has alleged facts supporting such claims, but fails to check a blank on a form complaint indicating that she wishes to bring them. We conclude that such a bright-line rule runs
counter to our policy of liberally construing pro se submissions, and that McLeod's complaint should have been read by the district court to assert claims under New York state and local discrimination law as well as under federal law. A summary order issued simultaneously with this opinion addresses the balance of McLeod's claims on appeal. For the reasons stated below and in that summary order, we VACATE the district court's determination that McLeod asserted claims only under federal law, its dismissal of claims against the individual defendants, and its dismissal of McLeod's hostile work environment claim; and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with our rulings.
BACKGROUND
Proceeding pro se, McLeod filed suit in the Southern District of New York in September 2013, alleging that she was the victim of sexual harassment while employed by defendant-appellee, The Jewish Guild for the Blind ("JGB"). In bringing suit, McLeod used a form discrimination complaint provided by the district court's pro se office that asks litigants to place check marks next to the laws under which they wish to bring their claims. McLeod checked a blank indicating that she wished to bring claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. , but did not check blanks corresponding to the New York State Human Rights Law ("NYSHRL"), N.Y. Exec. Law § 290 et seq. , or the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-101 et seq. McLeod also checked blanks referring to other bases of discrimination, but failed to check the blank for "gender/sex," even though the complaint elsewhere refers to "sexual harassment." A. 34. Appended to the form complaint were McLeod's handwritten allegations detailing her direct supervisor's conduct, which included sexually suggestive remarks as well as comments insinuating that McLeod worked part-time as a prostitute or stripper. The complaint did not name JGB as a defendant, instead naming McLeod's supervisor and three other individual executives of JGB.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the district court directed that the caption be amended to name JGB as a defendant and noted that individual defendants cannot be held liable under Title VII. The district court later dismissed the individual defendants from the action after explaining to McLeod during a pre-motion conference that individual defendants cannot be held liable under Title VII. Thereafter, JGB moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. In ruling on the motion, the district court noted that "[o]n her pre-printed complaint form, McLeod indicates that she is suing only under Title VII," Dkt. No. 46 at 3, apparently referring to the fact that McLeod had only checked the blank on the form complaint corresponding to Title VII. The district court then dismissed McLeod's claims based on age, color, and disability, and stated that the case would proceed only with respect to her claims under Title VII on the basis of sex. The district court later dismissed those claims at summary judgment. This timely appeal followed.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Calen v. United States, 18-CV-2183 (JMA) (AKT)
...Court construes his pleadings liberally “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” See McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017). Plaintiff alleges that on December 5, 2015, Rita A. VanIderstein, a Revenue Officer at the IRS, left a notice of levy at ......
-
Saleh v. Pastore, 19 Civ. 11799 (KPF)
...the Court is to read Plaintiff's "submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 3. The Naturalization ......
-
Collins v. Putt, Docket No. 19-1169-cv
...by pro se litigants" like Collins are properly read "to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). Following that principle here, we address viewpoint discrimination on the merits in Part III......
-
Corley v. Vance, 15 Civ. 1800 (KPF)
...474 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Pabon v. Wright , 459 F.3d 241, 248 (2d Cir. 2006) ); see generally McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind , 864 F.3d 154, 158 (2d Cir. 2017). To this end, the Court has considered factual assertions made by Plaintiff during the pre-motion conference on this matter......
-
Collins v. Putt, Docket No. 19-1169-cv
...by pro se litigants" like Collins are properly read "to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quotation marks omitted). Following that principle here, we address viewpoint discrimination on the merits in Part III......
-
Forkin v. Local 804 Union, 18-CV-3397 (MKB)
...in the caption as he fails to include any allegations against IBT. (See generally SAC.)2 See McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind , 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) ("We liberally construe pleadings and briefs submitted by pro se litigants, reading such submissions to raise the......
-
Calen v. United States, 18-CV-2183 (JMA) (AKT)
...Court construes his pleadings liberally “to raise the strongest arguments that they suggest.” See McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017). Plaintiff alleges that on December 5, 2015, Rita A. VanIderstein, a Revenue Officer at the IRS, left a notice of levy at ......
-
Saleh v. Pastore, 19 Civ. 11799 (KPF)
...the Court is to read Plaintiff's "submissions to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." McLeod v. Jewish Guild for the Blind, 864 F.3d 154, 156 (2d Cir. 2017) (quoting Bertin v. United States, 478 F.3d 489, 491 (2d Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 3. The Naturalization ......