United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
PATRICIA L. COHEN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Walmart's motion
for partial dismissal [ECF No. 19] and Plaintiff Charles
Pointer's motion for sanctions [ECF No. 22]. For the
reasons that follow, Defendant's motion is granted and
Plaintiff's motion is denied.
Procedural and Factual Background
facts, as alleged in the complaint are as follows: Plaintiff
is African American, disabled, and over forty years old.
[Id. at 7] On November 12, 2018, he applied for a
job at Defendant's store in Kirkwood, Missouri. Based on
a pre-screening test, the hiring coordinator informed
Plaintiff that “he could not work good with
people.” [Id.] The hiring coordinator
introduced Plaintiff to the shipping and receiving manager
(“the manager”), who gave Plaintiff a tour of the
facility. During the tour, Plaintiff informed the manager
that he received dialysis treatments from 6:30 a.m. to 11:00
a.m., but he assured the manager that “it would not
interfere with his work schedule at Walmart.”
[Id. at 12-13] After the tour, the manager and
hiring coordinator conferred. [Id. at 13] The hiring
coordinator subsequently called Plaintiff into her office and
informed him, “You would be too slow working in a fast
paced work place taking products off the truck and placing
products on the shelves.” [Id.]
filed this pro se employment discrimination against
Defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C.
§§ 621, et seq., and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et
[ECF No. 1] Plaintiff alleged that Defendant discriminated
against him on the basis of race, age, and disability in
failing to hire him and failing to accommodate his
disability. Plaintiff also alleged claims of disparate
treatment and disparate impact based on race. Plaintiff seeks
compensatory and punitive damages and requests that Defendant
“give him a job like greeting customers coming into the
store or putting goods on the shelves.” [Id.
moves for partial dismissal for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). [ECF No. 19] Defendant
argues that Plaintiff failed to properly plead claims for
race discrimination and disparate treatment and failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies for a disparate-impact
claim. Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion for partial
dismissal and, additionally, seeks sanctions against
Defendant for “malicious prosecution.” [ECF Nos.
ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court must
accept as true all of the factual allegations in the
complaint, but it need not accept legal conclusions.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.'” Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim satisfies
the plausibility standard “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. (citing Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556).
applying these principles, a court must construe a
plaintiff's pro se complaint liberally.
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004).
Thus, “if the essence of an allegation is discernible,
even though it is not pleaded with legal nicety, then the
district court should construe the complaint in a way that
permits the layperson's claim to be considered within the
proper legal framework.” Jackson v. Nixon, 747
F.3d 537, 544 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Stone, 364
F.3d at 915). However, a pro se complaint
“still must allege sufficient facts to support the
claims advanced.” Stone, 364 F.3d at 914.
Defendant's motion for partial dismissal
moves for dismissal of Plaintiff's race discrimination
claim because Plaintiff “failed to plead a single
actionable allegation related in any way to his race.”
[ECF No. 19-1 at 5] More specifically, Defendant asserts that
Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support an
inference that Defendant's decision not to hire Plaintiff
was based, at least in part, on Plaintiff's race. In
response, Plaintiff reiterates his allegations that: (1)
Plaintiff was African American; (2) Plaintiff was qualified
for the job; (3) “Defendant kept on hiring people after
they did not hire” Plaintiff; and (4) “Defendant
did not give Plaintiff a non-discriminatory reason for not
hiring him.” [ECF No. 27 at 1]
Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer “to fail or
refuse to hire or 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….” 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To state a claim for
discriminatory failure to hire, a plaintiff must show that:
(1) he belonged to a protected class; (2) he applied and was
qualified for a job for which the defendant was seeking
applicants; (3) the defendant rejected the plaintiff; and (4)
after rejecting the plaintiff, the defendant continued to
seek applicants with the plaintiff's qualifications.
E.E.O.C. v. Audrain Health Care, Inc., 756 F.3d
1083, 1087 (8th Cir. 2014). Although it is not necessary for
an employment discrimination plaintiff to ...