Robinson v. VSI Construction, Inc.

Background

Jhonathan Jontae Robinson applied for a job with VSI Construction, Inc., and interviewed with Marshall Tutt, VSI’s construction facilities crew manager. Robinson alleged that he disclosed post-traumatic stress disorder and another unspecified mental impairment and said he planned to undergo therapy. He did not request a workplace accommodation.

Robinson was hired through a staffing agency to perform work for VSI. He alleged that another newly hired employee, who was not African American, was hired directly by VSI. When Robinson asked Marshall Tutt about the difference, Tutt said the other employee was related to a family friend and that VSI did not hire people it did not know. Robinson also alleged confusion about his schedule, timecards, and pay rate, including that VSI promised him higher wages than he received.

Robinson later spoke by telephone with VSI president Jay Tutt about his treatment. Jay Tutt repeated that VSI did not directly hire people it did not know. Robinson asked to meet in person, but Jay Tutt declined, and VSI soon ended Robinson’s work placement. Robinson filed discrimination charges with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After those agencies dismissed the charges, Robinson filed this case and asserted race-discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act and Title VII; disability-discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act; and retaliation claims under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. He sought $11,000,000 in damages.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Under that rule, a complaint must allege enough facts to make a claim plausible, rather than merely possible or speculative. The court said it would read Robinson’s self-represented complaint liberally but would dismiss if the pleaded facts could not support a legal claim.

Claims against Marshall and Jay Tutt

The court explained that Title VII and the ADA generally require a person to first pursue an administrative charge before suing. The Minnesota Human Rights Act does not require that same exhaustion step, but it imposes filing deadlines. Robinson’s administrative charges named VSI, not Marshall or Jay Tutt. The court recognized an exception when the named and unnamed defendants have a sufficiently close relationship and assumed, for purposes of the motion, that VSI and the Tutts met that standard. It therefore did not dismiss the individual defendants on that ground.

Timeliness of the Minnesota Human Rights Act claims

Minnesota law required Robinson to file a civil action within 45 days after receiving notice that the Minnesota Department of Human Rights had dismissed his charge. Although Robinson denied receiving the notice, the court applied Minnesota’s presumption that mailed notice is received five days after it is sent. The court concluded that Robinson’s Minnesota Human Rights Act claims were untimely and dismissed them.

Race discrimination

The court accepted that ending Robinson’s work placement was an adverse employment action, meaning a job-related action that materially disadvantaged him. But it found no pleaded facts connecting that action to racial bias. Robinson did not allege that Jay Tutt ended his placement because of race or made negative references to his race. The court also noted that, when Jay Tutt asked whether Robinson believed race motivated the hiring decisions, Robinson answered no.

The court separately rejected Robinson’s theory that VSI failed to hire him directly because of race. It held that the allegation that VSI directly hired a non-African American employee because of a family connection did not, without more, plausibly suggest racial discrimination.

Disability discrimination

The court held that Robinson had not plausibly alleged that any adverse employment action was connected to a disability. Although he told Marshall Tutt that he believed he had a mental disability and intended to seek counseling, Robinson did not request an accommodation or allege that he could not perform the job. He also did not allege that he was denied an accommodation or that his perceived disability caused the end of his work placement.

Retaliation

A retaliation claim requires protected activity, an adverse action, and a connection between them. The court found that Robinson had not alleged protected activity because he did not formally or informally tell either Tutt that he believed he was being discriminated against because of race or disability. The court further held that Robinson had not plausibly alleged a connection between any protected conduct and the termination of his placement. The court stated that the discrimination and retaliation claims were analyzed the same way under Title VII, the ADA, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.