Jones v. Maritz Research Company, No. 2:2014cv02467 - Document 13 (D. Kan. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; granting 8 Motion for More Definite Statement. Plaintiff is ordered to file an Amended Complaint as to this claim within thirty days of this Order. See order for details. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 12/9/14. (msb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Maritz Research Company Doc. 13 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF KANSAS BONI TA L. JONES, Plaint iff, v. Case No. 14- 2467- SAC MARI TZ RESEARCH COMPANY, Defendant . MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This pro se em ploym ent discrim inat ion case com es before t he Court on Defendant ’s m ot ion t o dism iss for lack of j urisdict ion and for failure t o st at e a claim , or alt ernat ively, for a m ore definit e st at em ent . Pr o se Com pla in t s Pro se com plaint s, however inart fully pleaded, m ust be liberally const rued, and are held t o less st ringent st andards t han form al pleadings draft ed by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 ( 2007) . See Mart inez v. Garden, 430 F.3d 1302, 1304 ( 10t h Cir. 2005) . “ [ The] court , however, will not supply addit ional fact ual allegat ions t o round out a plaint iff's com plaint or const ruct a legal t heory on plaint iff's behalf.” Whit ney v. New Mexico, 113 F.3d 1170, 1173–74 ( 10t h Cir. 1997) ( quot at ions and cit at ions om it t ed) . The court should not be t he pro se lit igant 's advocat e, Hall v. Bellm on, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 ( 10t h Cir. 1991) , and will not accept as t rue conclusory Dockets.Justia.com allegat ions unsupport ed by fact ual allegat ions. Oxendine v. Kaplan, 241 F.3d 1272 ( 10t h Cir. 2001) . 1 2 ( b) ( 6 ) m ot ion s To survive a m ot ion t o dism iss for failure t o st at e a claim , a com plaint m ust have facial plausibilit y. To survive a m ot ion t o dism iss, a com plaint m ust cont ain sufficient fact ual m at t er, accept ed as t rue, t o “ st at e a claim for relief t hat is plausible on it s face.” I d. [ Bell At l. Corp. v. Twom bly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct . 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 ( 2007) ] at 570. A claim has facial plausibilit y when t he plaint iff pleads fact ual cont ent t hat allows t he court t o draw t he reasonable inference t hat t he Defendant is liable for t he m isconduct alleged. I d. at 556 [ 127 S.Ct . 1955] . The plausibilit y st andard is not akin t o a “ probabilit y requirem ent ,” but it asks for m ore t han a sheer possibilit y t hat a Defendant has act ed unlawfully. I d. Where a com plaint pleads fact s t hat are “ m erely consist ent wit h” a Defendant 's liabilit y, it “ st ops short of t he line bet ween possibilit y and plausibilit y of ‘ent it lem ent t o relief.’ ” I d. at 557 [ 127 S.Ct . 1955] . Ashcroft v. I qbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct . 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868, 884 ( 2009) . “ Threadbare recit als of t he elem ent s of a cause of act ion, support ed by m ere conclusory st at em ent s, do not suffice.” I d. “ [ C] ourt s should look t o t he specific allegat ions in t he com plaint t o det erm ine whet her t hey plausibly support a legal claim for relief.” Alvarado v. KOB–TV, L.L.C., 493 F.3d 1210, 1215 n. 2 ( 10t h Cir. 2007) . “ While t he 12( b) ( 6) st andard does not require t hat Plaint iff est ablish a prim a facie case in [ his] com plaint , t he elem ent s of each alleged cause of act ion help t o det erm ine whet her Plaint iff has set fort h a plausible claim .” Khalik v. Unit ed Air Lines, 671 F.3d 1188, 1192 ( 10t h Cir. 2012) . 2 “ The court 's funct ion on a Rule 12( b) ( 6) m ot ion is not t o weigh pot ent ial evidence t hat t he part ies m ight present at t rial, but t o assess whet her t he plaint iff's ... com plaint alone is legally sufficient t o st at e a claim for which relief m ay be grant ed.” Miller v. Glanz, 948 F.2d 1562, 1565 ( 10t h Cir. 1991) . The court accept s all well- pled fact ual allegat ions as t rue and views t hese allegat ions in t he light m ost favorable t o t he nonm oving part y. Sm it h v. Unit ed St at es, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 ( 10t h Cir. 2009) , cert . denied, 558 U.S. 1148, 130 S.Ct . 1142, 175 L.Ed.2d 973 ( 2010) . The court , however, is not under a dut y t o accept legal conclusions as t rue. I qbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct . 1937. “ Thus, m ere ‘labels and conclusions' and ‘form ulaic recit at ion of t he elem ent s of a cause of act ion’ will not suffice.” Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1191 ( 10t h Cir.2012) ( quot ing Twom bly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct . 1955) . I n evaluat ing a Rule 12( b) ( 6) m ot ion t o dism iss, t he court is lim it ed t o assessing t he legal sufficiency of t he allegat ions cont ained wit hin t he four corners of t he com plaint . Archulet a v. Wagner, 523 F.3d 1278, 1281 ( 10t h Cir. 2008) . But in considering t he com plaint in it s ent iret y, t he Court also exam ines any docum ent s “ incorporat ed int o t he com plaint by reference,” Tellabs, I nc. v. Makor I ssues & Right s, Lt d., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct . 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 ( 2007) , and docum ent s at t ached t o t he com plaint , Rosenfield v. HSBC Bank, USA, 681 F.3d 1172, 1189 ( 10t h Cir. 2012) ( quot at ions and cit at ions om it t ed) . 3 Pla in t iff’s Com pla in t The first page of Plaint iff’s com plaint st at es t hat she is alleging em ploym ent discrim inat ion under Tit le VI I and t he Age Discrim inat ion in Em ploym ent Act . But t he following page direct ed her, “ [ i] f you are claim ing age discrim inat ion, check one of t he following,” and she checked neit her. Dk. 1, p. 2. Her com plaint subsequent ly alleges t hat she believes she “ was discrim inat ed against because of” her “ race or color … black Am erican,” and her “ nat ional origin … black Am erican,” and t hat she st at ed t he sam e reasons in her EEOC charge of discrim inat ion. Dk. 1, p. 3. But Plaint iff’s EEOC charge checks t he box only for race discrim inat ion, and not t he boxes for color, nat ional origin, or age discrim inat ion. I t st at es: I was em ployed by t he above nam ed em ployer. My last posit ion held was Assigner. On or about July 14, 2014, I had a m eet ing about m y perform ance. I was t old m y calls were t oo low. I im proved on m y calls. However, on or about July 25, 2014, I was t old I did not t ell a cust om er t he correct inform at ion. I disagree t hat I t old t he cust om er t he incorrect inform at ion. My Supervisor t reat ed m e as if I were not whit e enough. She m ade fun of t he way I spoke. On or about August 29, 2014, I was let go. I was t reat ed different ly t han m y coworkers. I believe I have been discrim inat ed against because of m y race, black, in violat ion of Tit le VI I of t he Civil Right s Act of 1964, as am ended. Dk. 1, p. 9. Her com plaint cont ains very few fact s, m any conclusions, and m uch illegible handwrit ing. Plaint iff alleges t hat her supervisor was short - t em pered and singled her out from her co- workers as being an incorrect “ wanna be,” as annoying, and as dist urbing t he ot her workers. Her supervisor was 4 irrit at ed wit h her and ret aliat ed against her. Dk. 1, p. 3. She claim s t hat her supervisor Suzanne Gray was very suppressing, short - t em pered and host ile t oward ot her co- workers and herself. Plaint iff ignored t his behavior unt il anot her co- worker, her t rainer at t he t im e, walked past her desk and said t o her, “ Look lady, I alm ost hurt m yself.” The co- worker t hen said, in a m ore host ile m anner, “ Close t he ( illegible) .” Plaint iff felt t he const ant ret aliat ion against her becam e st ronger, as if she were “ an idiot .” Dk. 1, p. 6. When Plaint iff would ask Gray a quest ion pert aining t o Plaint iff’s j ob dut ies, Gray would answer everyone’s quest ions but hers. This dest royed Plaint iff’s peace of m ind and m ade her feel rej ect ed and hum iliat ed, isolat ed from her coworker( s) , and unwant ed. Plaint iff alludes t o a “ cover- up in syst em s” and st at es t hat Plaint iff is not asham ed of her color. But t he Court cannot decipher t he com plaint ’s ot her allegat ions. Dk. 1, p. 6- 7. I n her response t o t he m ot ion t o dism iss, Plaint iff alleges t hat her supervisor was rude and t hat unnam ed t eam m em bers were const ant ly rude and im polit e as she answered inbound calls. Plaint iff com plained of t heir behavior t o Suzanne Gray, and discussed t he behavior w it h an ( illegible) office of Marit z Research. She was t old by som eone at som e point t hat t he j ob wasn’t for her. Dk. 9, p 2. I n her argum ent , Plaint iff alludes t o “ com m ent s,” and cont ends t hat her general assert ions about event s leading up t o her t erm inat ion are sufficient , but offers no ot her fact s. I d. 5 Ra ce / Color Cla im Where, as here, t he McDonnell Douglas prim a facie case applies, it s elem ent s help t o det erm ine whet her t he plaint iff has a plausible claim . Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1192. “ [ A] prim a facie case of discrim inat ion m ust consist of evidence t hat ( 1) t he vict im belongs t o a prot ect ed class; ( 2) t he vict im suffered an adverse em ploym ent act ion; and ( 3) t he challenged act ion t ook place under circum st ances giving rise t o an inference of discrim inat ion.” E.E.O.C. v. PVNF, L.L.C., 487 F.3d 790, 800 ( 10t h Cir. 2007) . Plaint iff is black, so belongs t o a prot ect ed class. And her t erm inat ion const it ut es an adverse em ploym ent act ion. Piercy v. Maket a, 480 F.3d 1192, 1203 ( 10t h Cir. 2007) ( “ Adverse em ploym ent act ion includes significant change in em ploym ent st at us, such as hiring, firing, failing t o prom ot e, reassignm ent wit h significant ly different responsibilit ies, or a decision causing a significant change in benefit s.” ) . But Plaint iff’s EEOC com plaint does not m ent ion her t erm inat ion and inst ead com plains only of how she was t reat ed during her em ploym ent . Because Plaint iff alleged only racial harassm ent in her EEOC charge, she can allege only racial harassm ent in t his case. See Gilkey v. Prot ect ion One Alarm Monit oring, I nc., 517 Fed.Appx. 627 ( 10t h Cir. 2013) . “ Tit le VI I is not a general civilit y code for t he Am erican workplace.” Dick v. Phone Direct ories Co., 397 F.3d 1256, 1263 ( 10t h Cir. 2005) . “ Nor does it provide relief for t he ordinary t ribulat ions in t he workplace.” Ham by 6 v. Associat ed Cent ers for Therapy, 230 Fed.Appx. 772, 781, 2007 WL 458011, 8 ( 10t h Cir. 2007) . “ Accordingly, t he run- of- t he- m ill boorish, j uvenile, or annoying behavior t hat is not uncom m on in Am erican workplaces is not t he st uff of a Tit le VI I host ile work environm ent claim .” Morris v. Cit y of Colo. Springs, 666 F.3d 654, 663–64 ( 10t h Cir. 2012) ( int ernal quot es and cit at ions om it t ed) . And “ rudeness does not , st anding alone, dem onst rat e discrim inat ion.” Zam ora v. Elit e Logist ics, I nc., 478 F.3d 1160, 1182 ( 10t h Cir. 2007) . The court , t herefore, requires m ore t han evidence of “ m ere snubs, unj ust crit icism s, and discourt eous conduct .” Hudson v. AI H Receivable Managem ent Services, 2012 WL 5306277, 2 ( D.Kan. 2012) ( quot at ion m arks and cit at ion om it t ed) . I n ot her words, it is insufficient m erely t o allege t hat Plaint iff’s supervisor and co- workers were consist ent ly rude t o her. Plaint iff’s com plaint m ust include specific fact s t hat she was plausibly subj ect ed t o a host ile work environm ent based on her race or color. Plaint iff’s com plaint alleging a racially host ile work environm ent should show t hat t he workplace is perm eat ed wit h discrim inat ory int im idat ion, ridicule, and insult t hat is sufficient ly severe or pervasive t o alt er t he condit ions of t he vict im 's em ploym ent and creat e an abusive working environm ent , and t hat such act ion was based on her race/ color. See Morris v. Cit y of Colorado Springs, 666 F.3d 654 ( 10t h Cir. 2012) . Plaint iff’s com plaint does not appear t o m eet t his crit eria, but m uch of her com plaint is unint elligible. 7 “ A part y m ay m ove for a m ore definit e st at em ent of a pleading t o which a responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or am biguous t hat t he part y cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12( e) . Due t o t he m inim al pleading requirem ent s of t he Federal Rules, a Rule 12( e) m ot ion is generally disfavored by t he court and should be properly grant ed only when a part y is unable t o det erm ine t he issues t o w hich a response is required. Cream er v. Ellis Cnt y. Sheriff Dep't , 08–4126–JAR, 2009 WL 484491, at * 1 ( D.Kan. Feb. 26, 2009) . Rule 12( e) is designed t o st rike unint elligible pleadings rat her t han pleadings t hat lack det ail. I d. Such is t he case here. Plaint iff’s handwrit ing is illegible in so m any places t hat t he Court cannot read it , so t he Court cannot reasonably require Defendant t o prepare a response t o it . Alt hough it does not appear from what t he Court can decipher t hat Plaint iff has st at ed sufficient fact s t o m ake a plausible race/ color claim , t he Court cannot in good conscience dism iss her claim wit hout underst anding what she has writ t en. Accordingly, Plaint iff shall be perm it t ed t o file an am ended com plaint as t o her racial harassm ent claim . The court st rongly suggest s t hat she eit her t ype t he com plaint or print clearly on it or have som eone else do so for her because she will not be given anot her opport unit y t o m ake clear her claim s. Age D iscr im in a t ion Cla im 8 Having exam ined t he ent iret y of Plaint iff’s com plaint , t he Court doubt s t hat Plaint iff int ends t o bring an age discrim inat ion claim , but in an abundance of caut ion exam ines t he viabilit y of such a claim . Before bringing act ions in federal court , Tit le VI I and ADEA plaint iffs m ust first t im ely file an adm inist rat ive charge wit h t he EEOC or it s corresponding st at e agency, in t his case t he KHRC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5( e) ; 29 U.S.C. § 633( b) ; Sim m s v. Oklahom a ex rel. Dep't of Ment al Healt h & Subst ance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 ( 10t h Cir.) , cert . denied, 528 U.S. 815 ( 1999) . See also Shikles v. Sprint / Unit ed Managem ent Co., 426 F.3d 1304, 1317 ( 10t h Cir. 2005) . Exhaust ion of adm inist rat ive rem edies is a j urisdict ional prerequisit e t o filing a Tit le VI I claim in federal court . Edm ond v. At hlet e's Foot Group, 1997 WL 699053, at * 1, 129 F.3d 130 ( 10t h Cir. 1997) ( cit at ions om it t ed) . Requiring exhaust ion of adm inist rat ive rem edies serves t o give not ice t o t he em ployer and t o facilit at e int ernal resolut ion of t hose issues. Mart inez v. Pot t er, 347 F.3d 1208, 1211 ( 10t h Cir. 2003) . When a plaint iff alleges race and age discrim inat ion, she m ust exhaust her adm inist rat ive rem edies as t o bot h of t hose claim s. Thus filing an adm inist rat ive charge alleging race discrim inat ion does not exhaust one’s adm inist rat ive rem edies regarding age discrim inat ion. When det erm ining what allegat ions are m ade in t he EEOC charge, t he Court exam ines t he ent ire form – t he boxes checked by t he part y as well as t he part iculars st at ed by t he part y. 9 The failure t o m ark a part icular box creat es a presum pt ion t hat t he charging part y is not assert ing claim s represent ed by t hat box. See Gunnell v. Ut ah Valley St at e College, 152 F.3d 1253, 1260 ( 10t h Cir. 1998) . The presum pt ion m ay be rebut t ed, however, if t he t ext of t he charge clearly set s fort h t he basis of t he claim . I d. Jones v. U.P.S., I nc., 502 F.3d 1176, 1186 ( 10t h Cir. 2007) . Plaint iff, in her EEOC charge, checked t he box solely for race, and did not explicit ly or im plicit ly claim age discrim inat ion in her t ext . And she alleged fact s relat ing solely t o race or color discrim inat ion. Plaint iff's EEOC charge t hus says not hing about age discrim inat ion, and it is not reasonable t o believe t hat age discrim inat ion would be uncovered by an invest igat ion of plaint iff's claim s of racial harassm ent . See Mart inez, 347 F.3d at 1210–11. Nor do t he allegat ions in plaint iff's EEOC charge put defendant on not ice of any age discrim inat ion claim . Accordingly, plaint iff's age discrim inat ion claim s m ust be dism issed for lack of j urisdict ion. N a t ion a l Or igin Cla im Plaint iff’s com plaint , in t he nat ure of t he case, st at es her belief t hat she has been discrim inat ed against based on her nat ional origin. But Plaint iff did not include any nat ional origin claim in her EEOC charge. Accordingly, t his claim shall be dism issed for lack of j urisdict ion. The Court t hus finds it unnecessary t o det erm ine whet her Plaint iff’s com plaint shows t he plausibilit y of t he unlikely scenario t hat she suffered adverse act ion in Am erica by Am ericans because she was born in Am erica. See generally Not ari v. Denver Wat er Dept ., 971 F.2d 585, 588 ( 10t h Cir. 1992) ; Livingst on v. Roadway 10 Exp., I nc., 802 F.2d 1250, 1252 ( 10t h Cir. 1986) ( not ing prim a facie case for reverse discrim inat ion claim requires showing t hat t he defendant is t hat unusual em ployer who discrim inat es against t he m aj orit y.) I T I S THEREFORE ORDERED t hat Plaint iff’s age discrim inat ion and nat ional origin discrim inat ion claim s are dism issed for lack of j urisdict ion. I T I S FURTHER ORDERED t hat Plaint iff’s m ot ion for m ore definit e st at em ent is grant ed as t o Plaint iff’s racial harassm ent claim , t hus Plaint iff is ordered t o file an Am ended Com plaint as t o t his claim wit hin t hirt y days of t his Order. Dat ed t his 9t h day of Decem ber, 2014, at Topeka, Kansas. s/ Sam A. Crow Sam A. Crow, U.S. Dist rict Senior Judge 11
]]>
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.
