Jones v. Maritz Research Company, No. 2:2014cv02467 - Document 17 (D. Kan. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by U.S. District Senior Judge Sam A. Crow on 1/27/15. Mailed to pro se party Bonita Jones by regular & certified mail; Certified Tracking Number: 7010 2780 0003 1927 2524 (msb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones v. Maritz Research Company Doc. 17 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 Plaint iff’s am ended com plaint for failure t o st at e a claim . Plaint iff t im ely filed her am ended com plaint in response t o t he Court ’s prior order, which invit ed her t o do so as t o her race claim s. ( Dk.13) . The Court appreciat es t hat t he Plaint iff has now print ed or t yped her inform at ion, m aking her com plaint legible. The Court hereby incorporat es by reference it s prior order ( Dk. 13) t o t he ext ent not inconsist ent wit h it s findings herein. The issue is whet her Plaint iff has, by her am ended com plaint , sufficient ly st at ed a claim for race discrim inat ion. The com plaint checks t he boxes for race- based t erm inat ion of her em ploym ent , disparat e t erm s and condit ions of her em ploym ent , ret aliat ion, and harassm ent . Plaint iff’s short narrat ive describing t he conduct she believes is discrim inat ory alleges t hat Dockets.Justia.com her supervisor, Suzanne Gyro, was short - t em pered, t hat plaint iff was always singled out as being an “ incorrect wanna be,” and t hat plaint iff’s supervisor said plaint iff was annoying and was dist urbing t he ot her workers, which irrit at ed her. Dk. 14 p. 3. Plaint iff furt her alleges t hat her supervisor ret aliat ed against Plaint iff for asking quest ions about different proj ect s or work dut ies, which Plaint iff felt was im port ant for her work perform ance. Plaint iff alleges “ const ant harassm ent .” I d. Plaint iff at t aches t o her am ended com plaint a page of “ addit ional inform at ion,” which cont inues t he fact ual narrat ive. Plaint iff alleges t hat Suzzane Gyro and Mary, a co- worker, were very suppressing, short t em pered, and host ile t oward her and anot her co- worker. Plaint iff becam e offended by her co- worker’s behavior, and t he const ant harassm ent worsened t o t he point t hat it becam e t he norm . “ She” spoke in harsh and disrespect ful t ones t hat int im idat ed Plaint iff. One day her t em porary t rainer, Sham irra, said t o her in a host ile way, “ Look Lady! I alm ost hurt m yself. Close t he dam n draw[ er] .” Plaint iff felt const ant ly harassed, ridiculed, and it “ becam e st ronger, as if I was an idiot .” A co- worker on her t eam lashed out at anot her co- worker, t elling her she didn’t know everyt hing, and t he cust om ers would always com plain t o Plaint iff about how rude and disrespect ful t hey were. One cust om er, in t ears, asked t o com plain t o adm inist rat ion about t he const ant rudeness and disrespect . When Plaint iff relayed t he com plaint t o her supervisor and asked if t he m at t er was being 2 handled, her supervisor replied, “ Yes. I barred her calls so she can never call again.” Plaint iff’s supervisor asked t o m eet wit h her a couple of t im es: once t o com plain about Plaint iff’s low calls and lat er t o t ell Plaint iff she was not im proving, and t hat “ t hey” were com ing down hard on her because of som et hing Plaint iff had t old a cust om er. Plaint iff felt t hat she was being picked on for no reason, felt rej ect ed and hum iliat ed, and lost her peace of m ind. She felt unwant ed and isolat ed from t he ot her workers. Plaint iff t hen st at es: “ Where ‘Sham e of Racism ,’ was ‘covered’ up by narrow m in[ d] edness, ignorance and vain Modest y ‘ Of Cohearsh dishonest y This behavior [ was accept ed] by ot her[ s] , but as I observed, t he behavior, I becam e very offended.” Aft er she m et wit h Ms. Gyro anot her t im e, she was t erm inat ed, t hen went t o t he EEOC and filed t he underlying charge. AN ALYSI S Ra cia l H a r a ssm e n t / D ispa r a t e Tr e a t m e n t The Court ’s prior order at t em pt ed t o explain t o Plaint iff what m ust be shown t o st at e a claim for racial harassm ent . 1 … 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, 1 That order erred in st at ing t hat Plaint iff’s EEOC charge alleged only racial harassm ent , as t hat charge arguably included race- based t erm inat ion and disparat e t reat m ent as well. See Dk. 13, p. 6. 3 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) . Dk. 13, p. 7. Having reviewed t he am ended com plaint , and const ruing it in t he light m ost favorable t o t he Plaint iff, t he Court finds t hat t he am ended com plaint fails t o m eet t he legal st andard. Not hing in t he am ended com plaint st at es t he race or color of Plaint iff’s supervisor, coworkers, or cust om ers. But even if t he com plaint had st at ed t hat Plaint iff is black and ot hers were not , not hing in t he fact ual allegat ions raises a plausible inference t hat Plaint iff was t reat ed different ly t han her co- workers because Plaint iff is black. Nor do t he fact s show “ severe or pervasive” act s by t he defendant sufficient t o alt er t he condit ions of Plaint iff’s em ploym ent . Plaint iff’s am ended com plaint cont ains t oo few fact s, t oo m any conclusions, and falls far short of t he plausibilit y required by I qbal, Twom bly, and Khalik. See Dk. 13. Ra cia l Te r m in a t ion To st at e fort h a prim a facie case of discrim inat ion under Tit le VI I , a plaint iff m ust est ablish t hat ( 1) she is a m em ber of a prot ect ed class, ( 2) she suffered an adverse em ploym ent act ion, ( 3) she was qualified for t he posit ion at issue, and ( 4) she was t reat ed less favorably t han ot hers not in t he prot ect ed class. See Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1192 ( int ernal cit at ion om it t ed) . 4 Plaint iff est ablishes t hat she is black and was t erm inat ed, but none of t he alleged fact s m eet t he t hird or fourt h elem ent s or ot herwise give rise t o an inference of discrim inat ion. This claim m ust be dism issed. Re t a lia t ion To set fort h a prim a facie case of ret aliat ion under Tit le VI I , a plaint iff m ust est ablish t hat ( 1) she engaged in prot ect ed opposit ion t o discrim inat ion, ( 2) a reasonable em ployee would have found t he challenged act ion m at erially adverse, and ( 3) t hat a causal connect ion exist ed bet ween t he prot ect ed act ivit y and t he m at erially adverse act ion. Khalik, 671 F.3d at 1193 ( int ernal quot at ions and cit at ion om it t ed) . I n her EEOC charge, Plaint iff checked t he box only for “ race,” and not t he box for “ ret aliat ion.” Dk. 1, p. 9. And her narrat ive arguably alleges disparat e t reat m ent , discrim inat ion, and t erm inat ion, but neit her m ent ions ret aliat ion nor st at es fact s t hat m ay support such a claim . Therefore, t he ret aliat ion claim in Plaint iff’s am ended com plaint is out side t he scope of t he invest igat ion t hat could reasonably be expect ed t o grow out of her EEOC charges. See At kins v. Boeing Co., 1933 WL 186170, * 3 ( D.Kan. 1993) , aff’d 28 F.3d 112 ( 10t h Cir. 1994) . Accordingly, Plaint iff has failed t o exhaust her adm inist rat ive rem edies for such a claim . But even if a ret aliat ion claim had been included in Plaint iff’s EEOC charge, Plaint iff’s am ended com plaint fails t o st at e a plausible claim of ret aliat ion. The only ret aliat ion arguably alleged in t he com plaint is t hat 5 Plaint iff’s supervisor ret aliat ed against her because she asked quest ions relat ed t o her j ob. But t hat kind of ret aliat ion is not illegal under Tit le VI I . Not hing in t he am ended com plaint shows t hat Plaint iff engaged in prot ect ed opposit ion t o race discrim inat ion ( such as m aking an int ernal com plaint about race discrim inat ion or filing an EEOC charge) before she was t erm inat ed or subj ect ed t o ot her adverse act ion. See McCue v. St at e of Kansas, 165 F.3d 784, 789 ( 10t h Cir. 1999) ; Past ran v. K–Mart Corp., 210 F.3d 1201, 1205 ( 10t h Cir. 2000) . I nst ead, t he fact s allege t hat Plaint iff filed her EEOC charge aft er she was t erm inat ed. Accordingly, t he Court finds t hat t he am ended com plaint fails t o show a plausible causal connect ion bet ween Plaint iff’s filing of her EEOC charge, or any ot her prot ect ed act ivit y, and any adverse em ploym ent act ion. Accordingly, any claim of ret aliat ion shall also be dism issed. I T I S THEREFORE ORDERED t hat Defendant ’s m ot ion t o dism iss ( Dk. 15) is grant ed. Dat ed t his 27t h day of January, 2015, at Topeka, Kansas. s/ Sam A. Crow Sam A. Crow, U.S. Dist rict Senior Judge 6
]]>
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.
