Khan v. Nordstrom Corporate Headquarters

Background

Jubil Hikmah Khan proceeded without a lawyer and brought claims against Nordstom Corporate Headquarters under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and “California Code of Regulations Title 2 Section 11062.” She alleged discrimination based on religion, described as “God given rights,” and national origin, described as “National American/indigenous ‘natural rights.’” She also alleged retaliation and harassment and requested money damages.

Khan alleged that on May 1, 2024, during her workday, she went to a café in a Nordstom women’s store in Manhattan to eat lunch. The store’s general manager told her that employees had to use break rooms and that she had to leave the café. Khan stated that another person was allowed to remain in the café, but she did not know whether that person was an employee or a customer. Afterward, she complained to a human-resources representative, who said that employees were not allowed to sit and eat in the café.

Khan further alleged that, while she was on vacation in August 2024, a human-resources manager looked for her in the stock room. A coworker told Khan that the manager had said she needed to sign a document or face disciplinary action. Khan appeared to identify the document as a call-monitoring privacy document. She alleged that all employees had to download Microsoft Teams to their personal cell phones and sign related documents. After Khan complained to human resources that requiring her to sign the document was discrimination based on national origin, she was told that failure to sign it by September 28, 2024, would result in termination. She alleged that she was fired on September 27, 2024.

Court’s analysis

Because Khan had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court reviewed the complaint under the federal statute governing screening of such complaints. The court explained that it must dismiss a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also explained that although complaints filed without a lawyer are read liberally, they still must provide a short and plain statement of facts making entitlement to relief plausible.

For a Title VII employment-discrimination claim at the pleading stage, the court said a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the employer took adverse employment action and that a protected characteristic—such as religion or national origin—was a motivating factor. The court concluded that Khan’s allegations did not currently suggest that she was mistreated because of a Title VII-protected characteristic. The complaint did not clearly identify her religion or national origin or explain how either affected the treatment she described.

The court also reasoned that the café incident appeared to involve a rule that employees could not use the café, rather than treatment based on religion or national origin. Khan did not know whether the other person allowed to remain was an employee or customer. In addition, the allegation that all employees had to use Microsoft Teams and sign related documents did not suggest that Khan alone was targeted. The court stated that the complaint therefore did not show that she suffered an adverse employment action or was treated differently because of religion or national origin.

Rulings

The court granted Khan leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. It directed her to provide facts identifying the relevant people, describing what each defendant did or failed to do, stating when and where the events occurred, describing her injuries, and identifying the relief requested. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint, so Khan would have to repeat any facts or claims she wanted the court to consider. The court stated that if she failed to amend on time and could not show good cause, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The court denied Khan’s motion for discovery without prejudice and directed the clerk to terminate that motion. No summons would issue at that time.