Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC

Background

Joseph Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his employer, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC. The complaint identified the employer as “The Westin NY at Times Square/Marriot International.” Johnson’s original complaint alleged religious discrimination under Title VII. The court had previously dismissed that complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and had also stated that dismissal would have been proper under Rule 8. The court warned Johnson that any later complaint would have to meet Rule 8’s requirements.

Johnson then filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint was 393 pages long and repeated his earlier allegations while adding new ones. Starwood moved to dismiss under Rule 8 and Rule 12(b)(6).

The court’s analysis

The court held that the amended complaint did not plausibly state a Title VII religious-discrimination claim. To state an employment-discrimination claim, Johnson needed to plausibly allege that Starwood took adverse employment action against him and that his religion was a motivating factor in that action. The court found that much of the information attached to the complaint concerned disputes with individual employees and did not show that Starwood took adverse action related to those incidents.

The court also rejected the apparent hostile-work-environment theory because Johnson did not allege facts showing that the incidents were sufficiently severe or pervasive, or that they could be attributed to Starwood. The court further held that Johnson did not state a religious-accommodation claim based on requested time off or twice-weekly COVID-19 testing. Johnson did not allege that he had a religious objection to the testing, that he told Starwood he needed particular days off for religious reasons, or that Starwood denied a religiously based request. The complaint stated that Starwood granted his request for time off for Passover. His complaint about being denied vacation from May 1 through May 4 did not say that he requested those days for religious reasons.

The court separately held that the amended complaint violated Rule 8(a)(2), which requires a short and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief. The complaint mixed Johnson’s narrative with statutes, model jury instructions, administrative materials, messages, emails, church letters, news articles, and state-court filings. The exhibits were not organized by claim or topic, and their relevance was often unclear. The court said that the complaint’s allegations were largely impossible to understand and that requiring Starwood to sort through them would undermine Rule 8’s purpose of providing fair notice.

The court also explained that many of Johnson’s additional claims were frivolous on their face. It stated that Johnson had no private right to enforce state or federal criminal statutes. It rejected, as described in the opinion, a defamation theory based on Starwood’s retaining a record that it had investigated allegations that Johnson planned to attack coworkers. The court also stated that any objection to the settlement in an unrelated Fair Labor Standards Act class action could be filed with the court responsible for approving that settlement.

Disposition

The court dismissed the amended complaint. It denied leave to amend because Johnson had already received an opportunity to amend, had been warned about Rule 8, and had filed another complaint that remained prolix and unintelligible. The court also concluded that the potentially non-frivolous Title VII claims still failed to state a claim, so further amendment was not warranted.

The court granted Starwood’s motion to dismiss. It denied all pending motions as moot and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate docket entry 97 and close the case.