Austin v. ABC Legal

Background

George Jarvis Austin filed a complaint against ABC Legal, which he described as his putative former employer. The complaint asserted intentional employment discrimination, retaliation under Title VII, and breach of an employment contract. Austin alleged that while working at ABC Legal he experienced sabotage, discrimination, and hostility. He also referred to incorrect project deadlines, a lack of extensions, poor communication, and a pause in his work assignments.

Austin was proceeding without a lawyer. ABC Legal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state enough facts for a legally plausible claim. ABC Legal alternatively requested a more definite statement.

Austin did not file an amended complaint by the January 5, 2022 deadline the court had provided. He later filed an amended complaint on February 14, 2022, without requesting permission to file it late. That amended complaint appeared to change his position: instead of alleging that he was ABC Legal’s employee, it alleged that he was a customer who was wronged when ABC Legal refused to provide services. The court stated that it was unsure how to interpret that change.

Rulings on the Motions to Strike and Dismiss

The court granted ABC Legal’s motion to strike the untimely amended complaint. It therefore considered only Austin’s original complaint when deciding the motion to dismiss.

The court granted ABC Legal’s motion to dismiss the entirety of Austin’s complaint and ruled that all three claims failed to state a claim.

Intentional employment discrimination. The court held that Austin’s allegations did not provide facts from which discriminatory intent could plausibly be inferred. The complaint described ABC Legal’s conduct as discriminatory but did not explain facts showing that the conduct occurred because of Austin’s race. The complaint also did not identify a relevant group of similarly situated employees who received more favorable treatment. The court found that the remaining allegations—being given an incorrect project timeframe, not receiving deadline extensions, and receiving less-than-ideal communication—were insufficient and too vague to support the claim.

Title VII retaliation. A retaliation claim requires facts showing protected activity, an adverse employment action, and a causal connection between the two. The court found that Austin did not identify the protected activity on which his claim was based. He also did not adequately identify the adverse employment action; to the extent he relied on a pause in his workflow or assignments, the allegation was too vague. Finally, he did not plausibly allege a connection between the protected activity and the alleged adverse action.

Breach of employment contract. The court stated that this claim required facts showing a contract, Austin’s performance or an excuse for nonperformance, ABC Legal’s breach, and resulting damages. The complaint did not adequately allege that an employment contract existed, what Austin was required to do under it, whether he performed, how ABC Legal breached specific contract terms, or what damages he suffered.

Leave to Amend and Other Motions

Although the court granted the motion to dismiss all claims, it granted Austin leave to amend. The court gave him until April 10, 2022, to file an amended complaint addressing the factual deficiencies it identified.

The opinion also states that the court denied Austin’s second motion to disqualify or recuse Judge Illston because it was substantively identical to his earlier motion. The court also denied Austin’s motion for a declaration of mistrial. The hearing on the motion to strike was vacated.

Disposition

The court granted ABC Legal’s motion to dismiss as to all claims, granted ABC Legal’s motion to strike the untimely amended complaint, and granted Austin leave to amend by April 10, 2022. The order does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.