From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Paz v. Long Island Railroad

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 5, 1997
128 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1997)

Opinion

No. 459, 97-7376.

Argued: October 24, 1997.

Decided: November 5, 1997.

RICHARD J. BERKA, Long Island Railroad Company, Office of General Counsel, Jamaica, New York (Roberta Bender, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee.

DAVID M. LIRA, Law Office of David M. Lira, Esq., Garden City, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Reena Raggi, Judge), dismissing appellant's complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellant sought attorney's fees under Title VII despite not having alleged a violation of Title VII. We affirm.

Before: WINTER, Chief Judge, CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge, and POLLACK, District Judge.

The Honorable Milton Pollack, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.


Mark Paz appeals from Judge Raggi's dismissal of Paz's complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In February 1996, Paz filed suit under Section 706(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section(s) 2000e-5(k), for the sole purpose of recovering attorney's fees incurred in successfully pursuing state-law discrimination claims commenced between 1987 and 1991. Those discrimination claims did not allege a violation of Title VII. Paz's claim for attorney's fees did not, therefore, arise from an "action or proceeding under this subchapter," as required by Section 706(k). Accordingly, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in Judge Raggi's opinion. Paz v. Long Island R.R. Co., 954 F. Supp. 62 (E.D.N.Y. 1997).


Summaries of

Paz v. Long Island Railroad

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Nov 5, 1997
128 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1997)
Case details for

Paz v. Long Island Railroad

Case Details

Full title:MARK PAZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. LONG ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Date published: Nov 5, 1997

Citations

128 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 1997)

Citing Cases

Hansson v. Norton

B. Discussion The Secretary contends that plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because "the…

Chris v. Tenet

at the decision in Crest Street is not dispositive of § 2000e-5(k) claims because § (k) has no requirement…