Hussein v. Essentia Health

Background

Gamada Hussein alleged that Essentia Health employed him for about a month and that an employee served him pizza containing marijuana during his employment orientation. He also alleged conspiracies, surveillance, physical and psychological torture, harassment, discrimination, food poisoning, invasion of privacy, retaliation, and termination for pretextual reasons after he complained about unfair treatment and unlawful employment practices.

Hussein asserted nine claims: retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act; discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e; discrimination under the Minnesota Human Rights Act; a Fourth Amendment violation; discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; battery; invasion of privacy; intentional infliction of emotional distress; and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a). The court had previously granted his application to proceed without paying the filing fee.

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation and Review

A magistrate judge recommended dismissing Hussein’s federal claims without prejudice and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the court’s authority to hear related state-law claims—over the remaining state claims. Hussein objected, but his objection repeated general allegations and did not identify specific errors in the recommendation.

The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of the disputed issues. It found no clear error and agreed with the recommendation.

Reasons for Dismissal

The court concluded that Hussein did not allege specific facts supporting his Fair Labor Standards Act retaliation claim because he did not identify adverse conduct related to wages or hours. For his federal employment-discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and § 1981, he did not allege specific discriminatory conduct or an adverse employment action connected to a discriminatory motive.

The court also concluded that Hussein did not plausibly allege a Fourth Amendment violation because Essentia Health was a private actor and he did not identify a state actor with which it was working. On his retaliation claim under § 2000e-3(a), Hussein adequately alleged that he belonged to a protected class, but he did not allege facts showing a connection between that status and the alleged harassment by coworkers or Essentia Health.

The court stated that the pizza allegation did not relate to the federal claims it dismissed and could only be understood as relating to the state-law claims. Because the court dismissed all federal claims, it declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims.

Order

The court adopted the recommended disposition and ordered that the action be dismissed without prejudice. It also denied as moot Hussein’s motion for expedited discovery because no claims remained for which discovery could proceed. A dismissal without prejudice does not itself bar refiling, although the opinion does not address whether any later filing would be legally permitted.