Wilson v. Deshazo Cranes, LLC

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          KARON OWEN BOWDRE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The 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.

         For the 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 matter jurisdiction.

         I. Factual Background

         Plaintiff 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).

         Mr. 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.).

         Mr. 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.).

         Mr. 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.

         Mr. 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.

         II. Standard of Review

         A Rule 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).

         The 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.

         III. Discussion

         Mr. 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 ...