Webb v. 1300 South Miami Employer, LLC, No. 1:2022cv21379 - Document 10 (S.D. Fla. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 6 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.. Signed by Senior Judge James Lawrence King on 7/7/2022. See attached document for full details. (jw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Webb v. 1300 South Miami Employer, LLC Doc. 10 Case 1:22-cv-21379-JLK Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2022 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA M IA M I D IV ISIO N CASE N O.1:22-cv-21379.JLK BRAN DO N W EBB, Plaintiff, 1300 SO UTH M IAM IEM PLOY ER,LLC d/b/a SLS BRICKELL H O TEL & RESID EN CES, D efendant. ORDER G RANTING DEFENDANT'S M OTIO N TO DISM ISS THIS M A TTER is before the Court on D efendant's M otion to D ism iss Plaintiff's AmendedComplaint(thelûM otion'')(DE 6),t' iledonMay 10,2022.TheCourthasalsoconsidered Plaintiff'sResponse(DE 7)andDefendant'sReply(DE 8).Thismatterisripeforreview. BA CK G R O U ND On October 14,2021,Plaintiff filed hisComplaintin the CircuitCourtforthe Eleventh JudicialCircuitin and for M iam i-D ade County,Florida.See Com pl.,D E 1-1 at24.O n April4, 2022, Plaintiff tiled his Amended Complaint in state court alleging (1) Race and Color Discrimination in Violation ofthe Florida CivilRights Act(t1FCRA''),(2) Race and Color Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. j 1981 (édsection 1981''), and (3) Hostile W ork Environm ent in violation of the FCR A.See Am .Com pl,1d.at 2.On M ay 3,2022,D efendant timely removed this action to federalcourtalleging federalquestion jurisdiction.See Not.of Rem oval,D E 1. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:22-cv-21379-JLK Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2022 Page 2 of 6 Plaintiffallegesthathe isa Black m an who started working forDefendantin February of 2020 asa dishwasherbefore having hisposition changed to security guard in Octoberof2020. Am.Compl.!( !9-ll.Plaintiffallegeshewasdiseriminatedagainstwhen'ûghe)wasfalselyaccused ofstealingby aLatino chefgandafterwhich)wastransferred to security.''Id.!(13.Further,the chefallegedly Gûallowed othernon-black employeesto eatrestaurantfood buthe would notallow Plaintiffto eat restaurant food.''ld.However,Plaintiff does not allege whether eating at the restaurant was partof his duties orprivileges as an em ployee.Another example ofPlaintiffs allegeddiscrim inationisthatthehotelm anager,aW hitem an,calledPlaintiffiûlwoud''andûlflhetto'' andwoulddsstareatPlaintiffforlongperiodsoftimeoveracourseoftwomonths.,.gwhichwas) directed only atPlaintiffand nottowardsthe non-black employees.''Id.!! 14-15.However, Plaintiffdoesnotm ake clearwhen hereported thisbehavior,how m any timeshe reported it, or the way in which he repo/ed it.The Am ended Com plaintalso does not make clear whether Plaintiffw asterm inated orcontinues to w ork forD efendant. On M ay l0,2022,Defendantm oved to dismissPlaintiffsAmended Complaintpursuant to FederalRulesofCivilProcedure 8(a)and 12(b)(6)arguingthatitfailsto setforth sufticient factualallegationsto state a claim . l1. LE G A L STA N DA RD UnderFederalRuleofProcedure 8(a)(2),ûûgtlo sulwiveamotion to dismiss,acomplaint m ustcontain sufficientfactualm atter,accepted as true,to Sstate a claim to relief thatis plausible onitsfaee.'''Ashcwh v.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBellAtl.Corp.v.Twombly,550 U.S.544,570 (2007)).To meetthisstandard,aplaintiffmustplead Stfactualcontentthatallows the courtto draw the reasonable inference thatthe defendantis liable forthe m isconductalleged.'' Case 1:22-cv-21379-JLK Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2022 Page 3 of 6 Iqbal,556 U .S,at 678.A complaint must contain llm ore than labels and conclusions,and a formulaicrecitation oftheelem entsofacauseofaction willnotdo.''Twombly,550 U.S.at555. 111. DISCU SSIO N In itsM otiontoDismiss,DefendantarguesthatPlaintiffhasfailedtoallegeùprimafacie case fordiscrimination underthe FCRA orSection 1981.M ot.at6-7;See M cDonnellDouglas Corp.v. Green,411 U.S.792,802 (1973).Specifically,Defendant argues thatthe alleged discrim inatory com mentsam ountonly to tûstray rem arks''in thatthey are notbased on race./J. Further,D efendantarguesthatPlaintifffails to allege an adverse em ploym entaction or that any action wasmade by a decision-maker.ld.Plaintiffrespondsthathe doesnothaveto establish a primafaciecaseatthispointbutmustiûprovidekenoughfactualmatter(taken astrue)tosuggest' intentionalracediscrimination.''Resp.at4-5 (citing Davisv.Coca-cola Bottling Co.,516 F.3d 955,974(11thCir.2008)(citationomittedl). The Courtagreesthatestablishing aprimafacie caseunderMcDonnellDouglas isan evidentiary standard,nota pleading requirem entand thereforePlaintiffsAmended Complaintis notsubjecttothatheightenedstandard.SeeMcDonnellDouglasCorp..41lU.S.at802.However, PlaintiffstilliûmustsatisfytheplausibilitystandardsunderIqbaland Twombly.''Mot.at9(citation omitted).Thatis,thecomplaintçûmust...contain sufticientfactualmatter,accepted astrue,to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.''Am .D entalAss 'n v. Cigna Corp.,605 F.3d 1283,1289(11thCir.2010)(quoting Twombly,550U.S.at570).Here,Plaintiffsallegedfactsdo notm eetthisstandard. Plaintiffallegesthatheltwasfalselyaccused ofstealing byaLatinochefg.j''Am.Compl. ! 13.Thisallegation isnotsupported by any factthattheaccusation wasmadeagainstPlaintiff because ofhis race.Plaintifffurtheralleges thatthe chefttallow ed othernon-black em ployees to Case 1:22-cv-21379-JLK Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2022 Page 4 of 6 eatrestaurantfood buthe would notallow Plaintiffto eatrestaurantfood.''Id.W hile Plaintiff alleges that Stnon-black em ployees''w ere allow ed to eat in the restaurant, he does not allege specificfactsthatthiswasbecauseofhisrace.Id.Further,Plaintiffalso doesnotallegethateating atthe restaurantwaspartofhisemploym entdutiesorprivileges,and assuch thereareno factual statem entsindicating whetherthiswould am ountto an adverseemploymentaction. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's hotelm anager called him Sûl-oud''and tbGhetto''and wouldalsostareathim.Id.!!14-15.Plaintiffdoesnotallegethedatesofwhenthemanagermade these com m ents,how frequently he m ade them , or w here the com m ents w ere m ade.ln short, merely statingaperson calledPlaintiffkçlwoud''andEtGhetto''andstared atPlaintifflacksthefactual supportto state a claim ofracialdiscrim ination. Plaintiff also alleges thata cow orker 'ûbehaved in an aggressive and disrespectfulm anner overtheradio formonthsonend.''1d.! 16.Again,thisallegationlacksany factualsupportasto the tim e period,frequency,orseverity of the alleged com m ents.Plaintiffalleges thathe repolled this tûharassm ent''to his directsupervisorw ho ûkchose to ignore the Plaintiffw hile refusing to f5le arepol' tortakeaction.''1d.! 18.TheAmendedComplainthoweverdoesnotallegewhenhemade the reportto his supervisor,how Plaintiffreported the ûûharassm ent''orwhatexactly he reported. Plaintiffallegesthathewassubjected toahostilework environmentwhenhissupervisor andcoworkerbeganû:verballyyellingatPlaintiffovertheradiosystem.''1d.!20.Plaintiffalleges thathereported theûtharassment''ofcoworkersûtyelling athim and using theF word repeatedly in communications''to humanresourcesbutthey onlylltold gplaintifflthathewastoosensitiveand neededtoleal' n to communicatebetter.''1d.! 23.Again,theallegationsofgenerally referring to yelling and harassm entare unsupported by facts. Case 1:22-cv-21379-JLK Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2022 Page 5 of 6 Plaintiffallegesthathis supervisorwas unhappy thatPlaintiff made a repol'tto human resources and 'ûbegan to retaliate against plaintiff by telling lies to managem ent such as that Plaintiffwasnotpatrolling and hidingoutwhilenotdoinghisjobgl''and tiledlkfalsewrite-ups'' aboutPlaintiff.Id.! l9.Therearenofactsallegedastowhentheliesweretold,ortowhom they weretold.Likewise,regardingtheitwrite-ups,''itisunclearwhen they werem ade,how frequently, orwhatthe contentofthewrite-upsincluded. Plaintiffalso allegesthatheiûwaswrittenup fornotwearing amask''whenhestateshe did in facthave amask on and ûtgoltheremployeeswerenotwritten up though they were ...not wearingmasks''Id.! 22.TheAmendedComplaintdoesnotelaborateany moreasto thedateof thewrite-up,who allegedly wrotePlaintiffup,orwho theotheremployeesalso notwearing masks Nvere. W hileRule8(a)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProceduredoesnotrequiredetailed factual allegations, demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawtully-harmed-me accusation.''Iqbal,556 U.S.at678.To state a claim in an employmentdiscrim ination case,a plaintiffmustallegefaetsto givethedefendantûifairnotiee ofthe basis''fortheplaintiffsclaim s. Swierkiewiczv.SoremaN.X.,534U.S.506,514(2002).ThefactsasallegeddonotgiveDefendant fairnotice becausethey failto include datesand necessary additionalinform ation,instead m uch ofthe A m ended Com plaintprovides Defendantonly w ith opinionsand conclusions. Further,Plaintiff does not allege an adverse em ploym ent action.A tm ost,w hat Plaintiff allegesarerudecommentsandimpolitebehavior.SeeMitchellv.Univ.ofN.AIa.,785Fed.Appx. 730,736 (11th Cir.2019)(ltl jota11conductby an employernegatively affectingan employee constitutes an adverse em ploym entaction.Rather,an em ployee m ustshow serious and m aterial changeinheremploymentconditions.''(citationsomittedl). Case 1:22-cv-21379-JLK Document 10 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/07/2022 Page 6 of 6 Accordingly,itisO RDERED,ADJUDG ED and DECREED thatDefendant's M otion toDismiss(DE 6)be,andthesamehereby is,GIU NTED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that PlaintiffsAmended Complaint(DE 1-1)isherebyDISM ISSED W ITHOUT PREJUDICE. DO N E A N D O R D ERE D in Cham bers at the Jam es Law rence K ing Federal Justice Buildingand United StatesCourthouse,M iami,Floridathis7th day ofJuly,2022. V A M ES LA W REN CE K IN G UN ITED STA TES D ISTRICT SO U TH ERN D ISTRICT OF F cc: A1lcounselofrecord 6 GE RID A
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
