In Bailey v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc., 16-cv-7184, 2017 WL 4712220 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 18, 2017), the court dismissed plaintiff’s Amended Complaint – which purportedly alleged religion and national origin discrimination – because if did not address the deficiencies resulting in the dismissal of his original complaint.
Like many cases, this one falters because plaintiff did not plausibly allege discrimination because of a protected characteristic.
From the Memorandum & Order:
Although the brief Amended Complaint does not include any statute(s), the Court presumes that Plaintiff’s claims continue to arise under Title VII. However, like the original, Plaintiff does not set forth any facts from which the Court could reasonably infer a religious-based, or national origin-based motivation for Plaintiff’s claimed “wrongful termination.” As the M&O made clear, “Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against any individual regarding ‘compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.’ ” (M&O at 4 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)).) Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint simply repeats the same facts asserted in the original Complaint. Indeed, with regard to his claim of discrimination based on religion, Plaintiff alleges in both the Complaint and Amended Complaint only that the Human Resources representative stated, “You are not a Christian.” (Compl. at 5; Am. Compl. at 2-3.) Plaintiff does not allege, for example, that individuals of a different national origin or religion from Plaintiff were given preferential treatment when compared to Plaintiff or that Plaintiff was subjected to any specific national origin-based or religion-based remarks that may demonstrate a discriminatory animus, notwithstanding the Court’s clear guidance as set forth in the M&O. (See M&O at 5-6.)
As is readily apparent, the Amended Complaint, like the original Complaint, is devoid of any facts in support of a national origin-based or religion-based discrimination claim. Although Plaintiff is not required “to plead specific facts to show a prima facie case of discrimination, … dismissal is nevertheless appropriate where the plaintiff failed to allege even the basic elements of a discriminatory action claim.” (Emphasis added.)