A federal judge dismissed a discrimination suit by a former New Jersey judiciary employee on grounds that her complaint failed to pinpoint any actual discriminatory conduct.

In Stovall v. New Jersey, U.S. District Judge Noel Hillman of the District of New Jersey granted the defendants' motion to dismiss Flavia Stovall's second amended complaint with prejudice.

With the April 22 opinion, Hillman said he relied on findings by District Judge Renee Marie Bumb, who dismissed prior iterations of Stovall's complaint but permitted amendments.

The other named defendants—onetime managers or co-workers of Stovall's in the Camden vicinage, according to a judiciary spokesman—are: James Grazioli, human resources manager; Gilberto Velasquez, chief of probation; Jeff Weisemann, finance division manager; and Luis Perez, assistant finance division manager.

Hillman, like Bumb, said Stovall, a 59-year-old African American woman who was an administrative specialist, failed to back up her claims of harassment and retaliation, and offered no specifics to seek relief under Title VII.

On Aug. 9, 2016, Stovall filed an initial complaint pro se, claiming discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII; discrimination and retaliation in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination; "malicious acts"; violations of the Equal Protection Clause; and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Bumb previously wrote that the plaintiff's complaint "reads more like a daily log of her issues with management than a short and plain statement of any grounds for legal relief." Bumb also said, "It is unclear from Plaintiff's excessively detailed complaint what conduct, and by which Defendants, she alleges is legally actionable — i.e., discriminatory or retaliatory as opposed to simply rude or unfair — and what conduct is simply provided as background information," adding, "In the end, Plaintiff's Complaint is so 'excessively voluminous and unfocused' that it 'defies any attempt to meaningfully answer or plead to it.'"

Hillman, dismissing the second amended complaint, said in the April 22 opinion, "While Plaintiff elected to file a second amended complaint, through counsel, she has failed to correct most, if not all, of the deficiencies identified by Judge Bumb."

"This Court agrees with Defendants. … Absent from the statement of facts is any specific allegation of discriminatory conduct linked to the allegedly objectionable occurrences. … Plaintiff makes broad and legal conclusions," Hillman wrote in the 25-page opinion.

Clifford Steward of Newark represents Stovall. Steward could not be reached for comment.

Deputy Attorney General Agnes Irene Rymer represents the defendants. Leland Moore, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office, had no comment.

During her employment at the Camden vicinage, Stovall alleged that she was "a target for abuse," was "insulted and humiliated," "embarrassed," and caused to feel "small" from management. She alleged disparate treatment, hostile work environment, racial discrimination and retaliation.

Hillman disagreed that Stovall, who filed a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before seeking judicial review. Stovall's EEOC intake questionnaire said she "thought she was being discriminated against by Defendants on the basis of race, sex, and retaliation" and alleged she was discriminated against because she was the "only African American supervisor in the division." One alleged incident involved a supervisor disciplining her for "fabricated" reasons, resulting in unspecified "rights" being violated, Hillman said. Another incident involved a supervisor "intentionally sen[ding] [an] email to provoke a response so he can discipline [Plaintiff]."

But the EEOC investigated and was unable to conclude that the information alleged constituted a statutory violation. Stovall was issued a right-to-sue letter.

Hillman did not "dismiss this action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies," but instead granted dismissal based on Stovall's inability to show any viable Title VII claims for race discrimination, disparate treatment based on race, retaliation by her former employer, or a hostile work environment.

Stovall "does not allege, with any sense of clarity, facts suggesting she suffered some adverse employment action occurring under circumstances that give rise to an inference of intentional racial discrimination," Hillman said.

Among Stovall's examples of discriminatory or harassing behavior toward her included defendants disciplining her to "openly terrorize her and create fear" for "allowing her staff to dress down"; and defendants identifying her as "you" but never by "her given name" despite referring to white female employees "by their given name."

"Where Plaintiff does make allegations regarding race discrimination, they are sparse and conclusory. Such conclusory allegations are insufficient sustenance for Title VII discrimination claims," Hillman wrote.

Hillman said Stovall failed to show a causal connection between her race and that intentional discrimination was inflicted on her because of it.

Hillman noted that the state Supreme Court has made clear that "'simple teasing,' off-hand comments, and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious)" are not actionable under Title VII.

Even after Stovall's second amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2019, she failed "to identify any causal connection between an adverse action and her EEOC filing," Hillman wrote. "Such pleading deficiencies require dismissal."

For Stovall, the third time won't be the charm. She is barred from filing another amendment.

"Plaintiff has exhibited a consistent inability to cure her pleading deficiencies on two prior occasions," Hillman wrote. "As such, the Court … will not grant Plaintiff leave to file any further amendments. The Clerk will be ordered to close this case."