Williams v. LSG Sky Chefs
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-02628
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Williams v. LGS Sky Chefs, Judge Swain dismissed Michael O. Williams’s amended employment-discrimination complaint for lacking plausible facts supporting discrimination or retaliation.
Michael O. Williams’s employment-discrimination and retaliation claims against LGS Sky Chefs and Robert Half were dismissed; further amendment and fee-free appeal status were denied.
What happened
In Michael O. Williams v. LGS Sky Chefs and Robert Half, Williams, who represented himself, alleged that the defendants discriminated and retaliated against him based on his national origin and treated him unfairly at work. The court previously gave him an opportunity to amend his complaint and explain facts supporting those claims.
In his amended complaint, Williams identified his race and color as Black and his nationality as American, but alleged only that he was retaliated against and discriminated against because of his national origin. The court found that he did not provide enough facts to reasonably suggest discrimination or retaliation, so it dismissed the complaint.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain denied further permission to amend because Williams had already been given an opportunity to correct the defects. The court also denied his permission to proceed without paying fees on appeal, certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and directed the clerk to enter judgment.
The detailed version
- Williams v. LSG Sky Chefs · No. 1:24-cv-02628
- Laura Swain
- Jan. 13, 2025
Background
Michael O. Williams proceeded without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. His original complaint named LGS Sky Chefs and Robert Half. According to the opinion, Robert Half assigned Williams to work at LGS Sky Chefs. Williams alleged that, between November 2022 and January 2023, he faced discrimination and retaliation based on his nationality. He described statements that he was not being given a full-time job because he was “not . . . Jamaican,” a threat by another worker, reduced hours, unwanted lunch breaks and food, lack of response to complaints, termination without an explanation, no further work assignments from Robert Half for more than a year, and lower pay than peers for the same work.
On October 4, 2024, the court directed Williams to amend his complaint. The court explained that he needed to allege facts plausibly showing an adverse employment action and that his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor in the employment decision. Williams filed an amended complaint on December 23, 2024. He identified his race and color as “black” and his nationality as “American.” The amended complaint alleged that he was retaliated against for high performance and complaints and discriminated against based on his American national origin. It also attached a notice of the right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the amended complaint did not provide facts plausibly suggesting that either defendant discriminated or retaliated against Williams because of his national origin or for another discriminatory or retaliatory reason. The court therefore dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal of a case filed without paying the filing fee when it fails to state a claim. The court declined to grant further permission to amend because Williams had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and the court found no indication that another amendment could cure them.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint. It denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. The clerk was directed to enter judgment.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.