Wagner v. Safeway, Inc.

Background

Michael L. Wagner, who was representing himself, sued Safeway, Inc. He alleged that numerous Safeway store employees engaged in systemic sexual harassment, stalked him on and off the store premises, and acted in threatening ways. He said the conduct forced him to shop at other markets. Wagner asserted one claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and sought $25 million in damages.

The court had previously granted Wagner permission to proceed without paying the filing fee. It then reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which requires screening of qualifying complaints and permits dismissal if a complaint is frivolous, fails to state a claim, or seeks relief from an immune defendant. The court applied the same basic plausibility standard used for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, while construing Wagner’s self-represented allegations liberally.

Court’s Analysis

The court said Wagner’s allegations were difficult to understand. To state a claim under Section 1981, he needed to allege that he belonged to a racial minority, that Safeway intended to discriminate against him because of race, and that the discrimination affected an activity covered by the statute. The court found that he alleged neither membership in a racial minority nor race-based discrimination.

The court also considered whether the allegations could support a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It explained that Title VII covers sexual harassment that changes the conditions of a person’s employment and creates an abusive work environment. Because Wagner appeared to allege harassment against him as a customer rather than in a workplace, the court said the allegations did not state a Title VII claim.

The court further considered possible state-law claims for harassment or stalking. It said it lacked a basis for supplemental jurisdiction—authority to hear related state-law claims—without a properly pleaded federal claim. It also said Wagner had not established diversity jurisdiction because he had not specifically alleged the parties’ citizenship and the required amount in controversy for such jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court concluded that it could not discern a plausible claim for relief and that the complaint failed Section 1915 review. It allowed Wagner to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The court did not dismiss the complaint in this order. It stated that if Wagner did not respond, or if an amended complaint failed to state a claim, the court might prepare a report and recommendation that a district judge dismiss the complaint. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley signed the order.