Roya v. Pacific Crane Maintenance Company, LLC

Background

This was the third round of motions to dismiss. Roya alleged that Pacific Crane Maintenance Company did not hire him for a job because he was Black and over 40. He previously alleged that the company hired younger, non-Black workers who were less qualified and were classified as lower-level workers under the company’s union contract. He also sought to add claims against the Pacific Maritime Association, although his first amended complaint did not contain allegations against that organization.

In the second amended complaint, Roya removed several earlier allegations about his qualifications and the qualifications of the person hired instead of him. He appeared to allege that the defendants systematically failed to hire Black workers. He also stated that he had turned down a crane-mechanic job with the Pacific Maritime Association, but the court could not determine whether that event was connected to the Pacific Crane hiring claim or was intended as a separate claim.

Claims and pleading problems

For a failure-to-hire discrimination claim, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege facts showing that he belonged to a protected class, applied and was qualified for an available job, was rejected despite his qualifications, and that the employer continued seeking similarly qualified applicants after the rejection. The court concluded that Roya needed to plead more facts about himself and the job he sought.

Roya also appeared to assert a hostile-work-environment claim against Pacific Crane and the Pacific Maritime Association. He alleged that Black mechanics were treated as inferior to white and other mechanics and referred to race-based incidents and assaults. The court said it needed more information, including when the incidents occurred and whether Roya worked for either defendant when they occurred, to determine whether the alleged harassment was severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive work environment.

Finally, Roya appeared to allege that the defendants violated a collective bargaining agreement through their hiring practices. He said it would have been futile to pursue the claim through the union, but the court found that he had not provided facts allowing it to evaluate that claim.

Ruling and next step

The court granted the motions to dismiss. Because Roya was representing himself, the court gave him one final chance to plead his claims. It ordered him to file a document titled “Third Amended Complaint” within three weeks of the order, by May 28, 2025. The court stated that deficient or late filings would not be excused. The order did not decide whether Roya ultimately could prove his discrimination, hostile-work-environment, or collective-bargaining-agreement claims.