Jackson v. Skinners Pub

Background

Howard Jackson alleged that Skinners Pub unlawfully terminated his employment because of his race and because he had acted as a “whistleblower.” Jackson applied to proceed without paying the filing fee. The court first considered that application because it had to screen the complaint before taking further action.

Court’s analysis

The court concluded that Jackson financially qualified to proceed without paying the filing fee. But a court must deny that status and dismiss an action when a complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In reviewing the complaint, the court accepted factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Jackson’s favor. It also applied the rule that a complaint must include enough facts to make a claim plausible, rather than relying only on legal conclusions. The court noted that complaints filed without a lawyer are read generously, but still must allege enough supporting facts.

The court found that Jackson’s complaint did not provide factual allegations supporting his discrimination and retaliation claims. Apart from the termination itself, Jackson did not identify actions by Skinners Pub resulting from discriminatory intent. He also did not allege facts giving a reason to believe that the termination was motivated by an unlawful purpose. The court therefore found that the allegations were conclusory and did not explain how Jackson was discriminated against or retaliated against.

The court also noted that Jackson had not submitted a federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission right-to-sue letter. It stated that the state agency letter Jackson submitted authorized suit only under state law, that the complaint did not show why the federal court would have original jurisdiction over those state-law claims, and that the time for filing a state-law suit appeared to have passed. These points appeared in the court’s footnote and were not the stated basis for dismissing the case at this stage.

Ruling

Rather than recommend dismissal immediately, the court gave Jackson an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint had to include facts that, if proven, would show that Skinners Pub acted unlawfully in terminating his employment. The court stated that the amended complaint did not need to be long or detailed, but could not rely entirely on conclusory allegations. Jackson had to file it within 20 days of the order. If he did not, the court stated that it would recommend dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute or, alternatively, failure to state a claim. The order did not dismiss the case at that time. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau.