Critchfield v. Preston Pipelines Inc.

Background

James Critchfield, who represented himself, sued his former employer, Preston Pipelines Inc., and five Preston employees: Mike Preston, Ron Bianchini, Rich Lewis, Dennis Daikoku, and Tom Ryan. He alleged that the defendants fired him for discriminatory reasons and passed him over for promotions or lateral moves to harass him. His filings referred to age discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and being fired for complaining about abuse from superiors.

Critchfield’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge alleged age discrimination based on his age of 61 and identified a 21-year-old employee who allegedly replaced him. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission later determined that it was unable to conclude that any statute had been violated. Critchfield filed this lawsuit on April 30, 2020, and personally mailed the summons and complaint by certified mail to all defendants at Preston’s office.

Defendants’ Motions

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5) for insufficient service of process, under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Service of Process

Rule 4 generally governs service of a summons and complaint. For service on individuals, a plaintiff may use methods authorized by federal or applicable state law, but Rule 4(c)(2) requires the person serving the documents to be someone who is not a party and is at least 18 years old. Because Critchfield personally mailed the documents, the court held that service did not comply with the rules. The court instructed him to comply with the service rules when serving Preston Pipelines and the individual defendants again.

Failure to State a Claim

A complaint must provide enough factual content to give defendants fair notice and make the claimed right to relief plausible, although a self-represented complaint is read liberally. The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and, to the extent applicable, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 do not provide damages claims against supervisors or fellow employees.

The court also held that Critchfield did not allege enough facts to plausibly support age discrimination. It found that he sufficiently alleged his age, satisfactory job performance, and discharge, but did not plausibly allege that a younger employee replaced him while being equally or less qualified, or provide other facts supporting an inference of age discrimination. His allegation that Preston hired “another much younger person” during the same week as the claimed restructuring was insufficient at the pleading stage.

The court also discussed the scope of Critchfield’s Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge. It described the complaint’s harassment and retaliation allegations as conclusory but said Critchfield was not necessarily asserting claims beyond the charge. Because the complaint was being dismissed, the court allowed him to address the scope of the charge in an amended complaint.

Disposition

The court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend under Rule 12(b)(5) for insufficient service and under Rule 12(b)(6). It ordered Critchfield to file an amended complaint by August 27, 2020, and to comply with the service rules. The order stated that it disposed of ECF No. 9.