Pittman v. Sitemetric

Background

Randy Dewayne Pittman, appearing without a lawyer, sued his former employer, Sitemetric, LLC. The opinion describes Sitemetric as a private business incorporated in Delaware. Pittman alleged that, soon after beginning work there, he sent two motivational emails to a large group of coworkers and improved his security-booth workspace with personal materials. He alleged that he initially received positive feedback, but that a supervisor later told him upper-level management was concerned about his messaging. After he emailed Sitemetric’s founder again, his access to the company’s systems was terminated.

Pittman alleged retaliation for his speech under the First Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1985(3), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the National Labor Relations Act. He also brought a California common-law claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. He sought an order preventing retaliation, interference with employment references and job prospects, and further adverse actions. The court had previously denied his request for a temporary restraining order, in part because he had not shown that he was likely to succeed on the merits.

Screening and claims

The court granted Pittman’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because he was proceeding without paying that fee, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) required the court to screen his complaint and dismiss it if it failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted.

The court concluded that the First Amendment claim failed because the Free Speech Clause does not generally prohibit a private party from restricting speech. Pittman needed to allege facts showing that Sitemetric, a private corporation, qualified as a state actor. His allegations that Sitemetric controlled access, scanned identification, and performed security operations did not show that it performed a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the government.

The court concluded that the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 failed because that law prohibits race-based discrimination in making and enforcing contracts, and Pittman did not allege that his termination was based on race. He also did not allege more favorable treatment of a similarly situated person of another race or retaliation for complaints about racial discrimination.

The court concluded that the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) failed for several reasons. Pittman sued only Sitemetric, not the company leaders whom he alleged had conspired. He also did not provide sufficiently specific facts supporting a conspiracy, identify interference with a legal right, or allege that the conspiracy was motivated by discriminatory animus based on race or another protected class.

The court concluded that Pittman’s Title VII retaliation claim failed because he did not allege that the activity for which he was terminated related to discrimination based on a protected characteristic, such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

The court concluded that the National Labor Relations Act claim could not be pursued in federal district court. Although the Act protects certain concerted employee activities, employees do not have a private right to enforce the cited provisions directly in federal court. The opinion states that the proper method of seeking redress is to file a charge with the National Labor Relations Board.

Finally, the court concluded that Pittman’s wrongful-termination claim failed. Under California law, the public policy supporting such a claim must be identified in a constitutional or statutory provision. Pittman did not connect the workplace policies concerning speech, dignity, and fairness that he identified to a specific constitutional or statutory provision, and the court found that his other claims were not viable sources of such a policy.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, without prejudice and with leave to amend. Although Pittman had previously been told about deficiencies in his complaint and given an opportunity to amend, the court granted him one additional opportunity. Any amended complaint had to be filed within 30 days of the order. The court stated that if Pittman did not file an amended complaint, his lawsuit would be dismissed with prejudice. The judge’s name is not clearly readable in the provided opinion text.