United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court upon the application plaintiff for
leave to commence this action without payment of the required
filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On
September 27, 2017, the Court ordered plaintiff to file a
fully complete CJA 23 Financial Affidavit. Plaintiff
submitted his complete affidavit on October 4, 2017, but it
was incorrectly filed in his companion case, Lee v.
Burlington Stores, Case No. 4:17-CV-2467 NAB (E.D. Mo.
filed Oct. 4, 2017). The Court will take judicial notice of
plaintiff's fully complete CJA 23 Financial Affidavit,
and grant plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Court will
dismiss plaintiff's claim for Title VII retaliation.
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a
complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead
more than “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action [that are] supported by mere conclusory
statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim
for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has
facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that
the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a
plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that
requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense. Id. at 679.
reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the
Court accepts the well-pled facts as true. Furthermore, the
Court liberally construes the allegations.
brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., for alleged
retaliation against his previous employer, Burlington Stores.
On September 27, 2017, the Court ordered plaintiff to amend
his complaint to complete his “Statement of
Claim.” On October 4, 2017, plaintiff filed his amended
complaint in his companion case, and attached a three-page
statement of his claim. See Lee v. Burlington
Stores, Case No. 4:17-CV-2467 NAB (ECF No. 7).
amended complaint, plaintiff states he was hired by defendant
on August 10, 2015 as a Receiving Supervisor, under the
supervision of Operations Managers Karen Coburn and Deanna
[Unknown], both white females. He states that at various
times he reported unsafe working conditions to the store
manager and the operations managers. He states his reports
were ignored by the operations managers. Plaintiff also
complains that the operations managers accused him of
stealing, and did not allow him to take the trash outside or
come into the store alone, while white males were allowed to
do these things. Plaintiff alleges white males were allowed
to violate the company's standard operating procedures,
while he was disciplined for not following company
procedures. In addition, plaintiff states he was not allowed
to have a chair, while other white employees were allowed
chairs. He was told not to do paperwork, but then disciplined
for not doing paperwork. Finally, plaintiff states his
procedures for calling in sick to work were different from
other team members. Plaintiff was eventually terminated for
using profanity at team members, although he states several
other employees were allowed to use profanity.
alleges he was retaliated against in violation of Title VII.
He seeks one million dollars in damages, including a $50,
000.00 donation to a black charity. He also requests all
defendant's management staff be retrained.
discussed, plaintiff did not file an amended complaint in
this Title VII retaliation case, as ordered, but rather filed
an amended complaint in his companion race discrimination
case. See supra, n.1. Having carefully reviewed and
liberally construed the amended complaint, the Court
concludes that it fails to state a claim of retaliation under
Title VII upon which relief can be granted.
Opinion, Memorandum, and Order dated September 27, 2017, the
Court clearly explained to plaintiff that he was required to
more fully set forth his “Statement of Claim” and
submit his amended complaint on the court-provided form. The
Court emphasized that the filing of the amended complaint
completely replaces the original
complaint. See ECF No. 5 (emphasis in original).
Despite this instruction, in his amended complaint, plaintiff
alleges no facts showing that defendant retaliated against
him for filing a prior EEOC claim. Plaintiff has not alleged
(1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2)
defendant took an adverse action against him; and (3) a
connection between the two occurrences. See Green v.
Franklin Nat'l Bank, 459 F.3d 903, 914 (8th Cir.
2006). For this reason, plaintiff has failed to state a prima
facie case of retaliation under Title VII and, therefore, he
has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
This case is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion
to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No 2] is
IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is
DISMISSED without prejudice IT IS
HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this ...