Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cole v. Pride

United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division

November 5, 2014

VICTOR SHAWN COLE, Plaintiff
v.
PILGRIMS PRIDE, Defendant

Victor Shawn Cole, Plaintiff, Pro se, Albertville, AL.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

HARWELL G. DAVIS, III, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff, Victor Shawn Cole, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint against Pilgrims Pride. (Doc. 1). He also has filed a Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and to Appoint Counsel. (Doc. 2). The complaint is before the court for initial review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.[1]

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he was denied employment with defendant based on his criminal history. He further alleges that defendant's employment application stated employment would not be denied based on history. Plaintiff alleges that he interviewed with someone named April, who advised him that she would have to get it approved. However, April later told plaintiff that defendant could not hire him because of his criminal history.[2] As relief, plaintiff asks the court to order a " legal right to permanent employment at Pilgrims Pride" and monetary damages. (Doc. 1 at 3).

Discussion

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200, 207, 113 S.Ct. 2035, 2040, 124 L.Ed.2d 118 (1993); Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 692, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1442, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986); Taylor v. Appleton, 30 F.3d 1365, 1367 (11th Cir. 1994). As the Supreme Court has stated, " the Court early in its history wisely adopted a presumption that every federal court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears from the record." Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 692, 106 S.Ct. at 1442 (internal citations and marks omitted). The court must determine if there is a legal basis for plaintiff's complaint over which this court may exercise jurisdiction.

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., provides in relevant part:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) 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, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Plaintiff is not claiming that defendant refused to hire him on the basis of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Therefore, he has failed to state a claim pursuant to Title VII.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq., provides in relevant part:

It shall be unlawful for an employer-
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.