UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Jannery A. Lara

v. Civil No. 08-cv-362-SM

New Hampshire Department of

Health and Human Services

O R D E R

Pro se plaintiff Jannery Lara has filed a complaint

(document no. 1) alleging that her former employer, the New

Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”), and

employees thereof, discriminated against her in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et

seq. (“Title VII”). Plaintiff alleges she was subjected to the

wrongful denial of promotions and other adverse employment

actions at DHHS because she is Hispanic. Because Lara is

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, the complaint is before

me for preliminary review to determine whether, among other

things, it states a claim upon which relief may be granted. See

United States District Court District of New Hampshire Local Rule

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(B). For the reasons stated below, I find that

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 1 of 11
2

plaintiff has alleged a claim for employment discrimination based

on race under Title VII, and I direct that this action proceed.

Standard of Review

Under this Court’s local rules, when a plaintiff commences

an action pro se and in forma pauperis, the magistrate judge is

directed to conduct a preliminary review. LR 4.3(d)(1)(B). In

conducting the preliminary review, the Court construes pro se

pleadings liberally, however inartfully pleaded. See Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, ___, 127 S. Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007) (following

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) and Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972) to construe pro se pleadings

liberally in favor of the pro se party). “The policy behind

affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is that if

they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit the correct

cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled.” See Castro v.

United States, 540 U.S. 375, 381 (2003) (noting that courts may

construe pro se pleadings so as to avoid inappropriately

stringent rules and unnecessary dismissals of claims); Ahmed v.

Rosenblatt, 118 F.3d 886, 890 (1st Cir. 1997). All of the

factual assertions made by a pro se plaintiff and inferences

reasonably drawn therefrom must be accepted as true. See id.

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 2 of 11
3

This review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair and

meaningful consideration. 

Background

Jannery Lara formerly worked as a secretary at the DHHS in

its Juvenile Justice Department (“JJD”). While there, Lara

became interested in obtaining a higher position within the JJD

as a Juvenile Probation and Parole Officer (“JPPO”). Lara made

it known to a number of management employees, as well as other

staff members, that she intended to return to school in order to

gain the appropriate educational background for a position as a

JPPO. Lara claims that, as soon as she announced her ambitions

to her coworkers, her work environment became hostile. Lara

cites a number of examples of the hostility which existed in her

work environment. 

Lara asserts that some of her coworkers did not want to

speak to her because of her accent and Hispanic appearance. Lara

asserts that many employees at the DHHS discriminate against

Hispanic people. Lara claims that supervisors conducting

interviews are particularly discriminatory. Lara names Jennifer

Ross, who conducted a first interview with Lara, looked at her

with disgust, ostensibly due to her Hispanic appearance. Some of

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 3 of 11
4

Lara’s coworkers, she claims, behaved inappropriately and

enviously due to the possibility that she would excel before

other, presumably non-Hispanic employees.

Lara states that her supervisors trained two other

secretaries on the use of a particular custom database, while

delaying her own training for two years, forcing her to plead to

be trained. Lara asserts that the delay was intended to make her

look stupid and unprepared to answer questions or be able to

produce essential reports, thereby hurting her employment stature

and reputation among coworkers. 

Lara complains that an Executive Secretary falsely accused

her of not knowing how to do simple functions of her job, such as

filing. The Executive Secretary also consistently spoke to her

in a disrespectful tone and treated her like a servant in front

of her coworkers. Lara advised management of the treatment she

was receiving from the Executive Secretary and asked her

supervisors to interfere and clarify the misunderstanding. Lara

states that she had to send several messages to both of her

supervisors before the matter received any attention. Lara

states that while management at her office was always aware of 

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 4 of 11
5

conflict between coworkers, that when the conflict involved her,

management never dealt with the matter in a timely fashion. 

One JPPO who worked in the JJD, who is now a supervisor,

instigated other JPPOs not to use Lara to do their secretarial

work. Lara claims this was designed to make her feel as though

she was not needed. The same JPPO would whisper hostile comments

to Lara, such as: “You are out of here” and “son of a bitch.” 

This individual also fabricated a story that money had been taken

from the office so that she could point an accusatory finger at

Lara for the theft, which she did by whispering to Lara “I am

calling the police.” This JPPO, Lara claims, never addressed her

or spoke to her in the office, although she spoke to the other

secretaries, until Lara complained about her conduct to the

JPPO’s supervisor, after which the JPPO made some effort to

acknowledge and address Lara.

Lara, while she was at the DHHS, was interested in applying

for a number of positions, but the Human Resources Department

would not certify her as qualified for those positions because

she held a Bachelor of Arts degree, rather than a Bachelor of

Science degree. While she was at the DHHS, Lara obtained her

Master of Science degree. The Human Resources Department then

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 5 of 11
6

refused to certify her as qualified for the jobs she was

interested in, as a JPPO, child protective services worker, or

child support officer, because she lacked experience. Lara

claims that her experience as a secretary in the JJD office was

not considered adequate. Lara attempted to contact people within

DHHS to find out what she had to do to obtain relevant

experience, but no one would provide her with an answer or direct

her to anyone who could. Lara asked the JJD supervisor if she

could shadow a JPPO in order to gain experience, and was told

that the supervisor would speak with Lara’s supervisor. When

Lara broached the subject with her own supervisor, proposing to

shadow a JPPO and make up any work time missed during her own

time, she never got a response. Lara also attempted to obtain an

internship with the New Hampshire Department of Children, Youth,

and Families, or within the JJD, but was told that her position

as a secretary at the JJD created a conflict of interest.

Lara claims that after she was denied a position as a JPPO,

DHHS and JJD management continued to treat her poorly by moving

her to another office, where her daily workload was delivered to

her by her supervisor and picked up by another employee. This 

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 6 of 11
1There is an exhaustion requirement in Title VII suits,

which requires the allegedly aggrieved employee to timely file

administrative charges, and then, if the complaint is resolved

against the employee, to file suit in an appropriate United

States District Court within 90 days fo the receipt of a “right

to sue” letter. Exhaustion is mandatory, but not jurisdictional. 

See Jorge v. Rumsfeld, 404 F.3d 556, 565 (1st Cir. 2005). 

Accordingly, while the complaint does not contain sufficient

7

arrangement was intended to prevent Lara from having contact with

other JJD staff members. 

Due to the hostility and difficulty she was experiencing at

work, Lara became ill. Her physician removed her from work for a

month and a half due to her work-related anxiety and depression

and instructed her to seek mental health counseling. While she

was out on sick leave, DHHS denied Lara sick pay or Worker’s

Compensation, deeming her absence due to emotional stress and

personal conflicts, and therefore not meeting the criteria for

those types of compensation.

Lara apparently filed a formal discrimination charge with

the United States Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division,

which was denied. Lara asserts that she received a “right to

sue” letter from that agency dated June 16, 2008. Lara has not

provided this Court with any documents submitted to the agency, a

copy of any decision rendered by the agency, or the date she

filed charges there.1

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 7 of 11
information to enable me to determine whether this action has

been exhausted, this does not prevent me from allowing this

action to proceed, subject to later being defended on exhaustion

grounds, if appropriate.

8

Discussion

The premise of plaintiff’s Title VII action is that

employees of the defendant agency discriminated against her

because she is Hispanic, by creating a hostile work environment,

failing to timely address and resolve the hostile work

environment on a management level, denying her promotions or

desirable positions within the agency, and taking adverse actions

in her work environment in order to deprive her of contact with

other staff members. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer

“to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate

against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such

individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). A Title VII plaintiff may establish

discrimination by introducing either direct evidence of

discrimination or circumstantial evidence supporting an inference

of discrimination. See Johnson v. Kroger Co., 319 F.3d 858, 864-

65 (6th Cir. 2003). In the instant case, Lara has not asserted

any facts alleging overt discrimination. That alone will not, at

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 8 of 11
9

this stage of the proceedings, prevent this action from going

forward. 

In Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., the Supreme Court held that,

to allege a Title VII claim, a complaint must include only the

“short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader

is entitled to relief” required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), and

“must simply give the defendant fair notice of what the

plaintiff’s claim is and the ground upon which it rests.” 534

U.S. 506, 512 (2002) (internal citations omitted); Educadores

Puertorriquenos en Accion v. Hernandez, 367 F.3d 61, 66 (1st Cir.

2004) (acknowledging that Swierkiewicz governs the pleading

requirements of Title VII cases in the First Circuit).

In this action, Lara asserts that her employer discriminated

against her with respect to the terms and conditions of her

employment because of her race. To support these allegations,

she states that coworkers avoided talking to her due to the fact

that she was Hispanic, resulting in certain hostile and adverse

acts by her supervisors, coworkers, and people who interviewed

her for better positions within the agency. In addition, the

negative feelings Lara alleges her coworkers had about her

potential for success that motivated the adverse actions taken

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 9 of 11
10

against Lara, were fueled by racial discrimination. These

allegations contain the minimum facts necessary to assert a Title

VII claim upon which relief might be granted. Accordingly, I

will direct that this action proceed.

Conclusion

Without commenting on the merits of the complaint, I find

that Lara has stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

Accordingly, I order that the complaint be served on defendant

DHHS. My review of the file indicates that Lara has completed a

summons form in this matter. The Clerk’s office is directed to

issue the summons against defendant and forward to the United

States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire (the “U.S.

Marshal’s office”) the summons and copies of the complaint

(document no. 1), and this Order. Upon receipt of the necessary

documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s office shall effect service

upon defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

Defendant is instructed to answer or otherwise plead within

twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Lara is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on 

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 10 of 11
11

the defendant by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: February 6, 2009

cc: Jannery A. Lara, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00362-SM Document 3 Filed 02/06/09 Page 11 of 11