Filed: Oct. 11, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: 12-1676 Hewitt v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DA
Summary: 12-1676 Hewitt v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DAT..
More
12-1676
Hewitt v. New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
1 At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
2 the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
3 Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 11th
4 day of October, two thousand thirteen.
5
6 PRESENT:
7 JOHN M. WALKER, Jr.,
8 PIERRE N. LEVAL,
9 RICHARD C. WESLEY,
10 Circuit Judges.
11 _____________________________________
12
13 Wanda O. Hewitt,
14
15 Plaintiff-Appellant,
16
17 v. 12-1676-cv
18
19 New York City Department of Health
20 and Mental Hygiene,
21
22 Defendant-Appellee.
23 _____________________________________
24
25 FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Wanda O. Hewitt, pro se, Brooklyn,
26 N.Y.
27
28 FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLEE: Larry A. Sonnenshein, Diana
29 Lawless, of Counsel, for Michael A.
30 Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the
31 City of New York, New York, N.Y.
32
33
1 Appeal from the judgment of the United States District Court
2 for the Eastern District of New York (Mauskopf, J.).
3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
4 DECREED that the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
5 Plaintiff-Appellant Wanda O. Hewitt, pro se, appeals from
6 the judgment of the district court dismissing her employment
7 discrimination complaint on the defendant’s motions to dismiss.
8 We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the
9 procedural history of the case, and the issues presented for
10 review.
11 We review de novo a district court decision dismissing a
12 complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
13 or 12(b)(6). See Jaghory v. New York State Dep’t of Educ., 131
14 F.3d 326, 329 (2d Cir. 1997). Dismissal of a case for lack of
15 subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) is proper “when
16 the district court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to
17 adjudicate it.” Makarova v. United States,
201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d
18 Cir. 2000). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the
19 complaint must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief
20 that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
21
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S.
22 662, 678 (2009). A claim will have “facial plausibility when the
23 plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw
24 the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
25 misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. While pro se
2
1 complaints must contain sufficient factual allegations to meet
2 the plausibility standard, see Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72
3 (2d Cir. 2009), we should look for such allegations by affording
4 the litigant “special solicitude” and “interpreting the complaint
5 to raise the strongest claims that it suggests,” Hill v.
6 Curcione,
657 F.3d 116, 122 (2d Cir. 2011) (quotation marks and
7 alterations omitted).
8 As a precondition to filing an action in federal court under
9 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), a
10 litigant must first have exhausted her administrative remedies by
11 timely filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal
12 Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). See 42 U.S.C. §
13 2000e-5(e); Francis v. City of New York,
235 F.3d 763, 766-67 (2d
14 Cir. 2000). Title VII requires a claimant to file a
15 discrimination charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the
16 alleged unlawful employment practice or, if the claimant
17 initially instituted proceedings with a state or local equal
18 employment agency, within 300 days of the alleged unlawful
19 employment practice. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); Quinn v.
20 Green Tree Credit Corp.,
159 F.3d 759, 765 (2d Cir. 1998). “With
21 respect to claims based on termination, failure to promote,
22 denial of transfer, or refusal to hire, [Title VII] precludes
23 recovery for discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation that
24 occur outside the statutory time period, even if other acts of
25 discrimination occurred within the statutory time period.”
3
1 McGullam v. Cedar Graphics, Inc., 609 F.3d 70, 75 (2d Cir. 2010)
2 (internal citations, emphasis, and quotation marks omitted).
3 Having conducted an independent, thorough and de novo review
4 of the record in light of these principles, we find that the
5 district court properly concluded that: (1) Hewitt failed to
6 administratively exhaust her Title VII retaliation claim by
7 failing to include that claim in her administrative complaint;
8 (2) Hewitt’s Title VII discrimination claims relating to her
9 August 2007 termination and the events preceding that termination
10 were time-barred under the applicable 300-day limitations period;
11 and (3) Hewitt failed to state a discrimination claim under Title
12 VII or New York law with respect to a March 2008 arbitration
13 hearing concerning her termination as she failed to allege facts
14 in her amended complaint suggesting that any discriminatory
15 animus played a role in the arbitration. Accordingly, we affirm
16 the dismissal of Hewitt’s complaint and amended complaint for
17 substantially the same reasons stated by the district court in
18 its orders dated December 7, 2010 and March 31, 2012.
19 We have considered all of Hewitt’s remaining arguments and
20 find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
21 judgment of the district court.
22
23 FOR THE COURT:
24 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
4
