United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
OWEN BOWDRE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the court on Defendant DeShazo, LLC's
“Motion to Dismiss or, In The Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment.” (Doc. 11). In its motion, DeShazo
moves to dismiss Mr. Wilson's employment discrimination
claims as either untimely or procedurally deficient. Deshazo
also moves for dismissal, or alternatively for summary
judgment, on what appears to be a breach-of-contract claim
included in Mr. Wilson's pro se employment
discrimination complaint. Mr. Wilson filed no response.
reasons discussed below, the court GRANTS DeShazo's
motion to dismiss. The court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Mr.
Wilson's racial discrimination and retaliation claims.
The court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Wilson's claims
for employment discrimination on the basis of color,
religion, and age. Having dismissed all the federal claims in
Mr. Wilson's complaint, the court DISMISSES WITHOUT
PREJUDICE any and all remaining claims for lack of subject
Mr. Wilson previously brought an employment discrimination
lawsuit against Defendant DeShazo in this court in April
2016. (No. 2:16-cv-705-RDP, Doc. 1). Upon the parties'
joint stipulation of dismissal, the court dismissed with
prejudice all claims against DeShazo in October 2016. (No.
2:16-cv-705-RDP, Doc. 13).
Wilson began working at FAB ARC on March 15, 2017. (Doc. 11-1
at 3). He alleges FAB ARC fired him on April 27, 2017, after
one of its Human Resources representatives spoke with a Human
Resources representative at DeShazo. (Id.).
Wilson began working at MacLellan Maintenance &
Engineering on May 5, 2017. (Doc. 11-1 at 3). He alleges
MacLellan fired him on June 2, 2017 after his supervisor
spoke with someone at DeShazo. (Id.).
Wilson filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on June
16, 2017. (Doc. 11-1). Mr. Wilson's EEOC charge alleges
racial discrimination and retaliation against Defendant
DeShazo, as well as non-parties to this suit FAB ARC and
MacLellan Maintenance & Engineering.
Wilson received his right-to-sue letter from the EEOC on
October 18, 2018, and he filed this lawsuit on February 19,
2019. (Doc. 1). Mr. Wilson's complaint alleges that
DeShazo, by divulging details about Mr. Wilson or his lawsuit
against it, discriminated against him on the basis on race,
color, religion, and age; retaliated against him for engaging
in behavior protected under Title VII; and potentially
violated their settlement agreement in the first lawsuit.
Standard of Review
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of
the complaint. Generally, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require only that the complaint provide a
“‘short and plain statement of the claim'
that will give the defendant fair notice of what the
plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47
(1957) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). The Supreme Court
explained that “[t]o 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.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint states a facially
plausible claim for relief “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. (citation omitted).
court accepts all factual allegations as true on a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Grossman
v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir.
2000). However, legal conclusions unsupported by factual
allegations are not entitled to that assumption of truth.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Wilson's complaint can be divided into at least three
categories of allegations: (1) color, religion, and age
discrimination claims that do not appear in his EEOC charge;
(2) race discrimination and retaliation claims that appear in
his EEOC ...