Alexis v. Sholom Shaller Family East Campus

Background

Jean Alexis alleged that he worked as a nursing assistant at a facility operated by Sholom Homes East, Inc. for more than three years. He alleged that a day nurse manager made a racially offensive comment, that coworkers and residents made false accusations against him, that he was required to attend additional training, and that he was placed on paid administrative leave while an assault allegation was investigated.

Alexis was removed from the work schedule in late September 2020. He later received a letter about required COVID-19 testing for nursing-home staff. Sholom terminated his employment on October 30, 2020, for failing to comply with the testing requirements. Alexis alleged that the termination and other conduct were based on race, color, and national origin and were also harassment and retaliation. He filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which dismissed the charge and issued a notice of the right to sue.

The defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. The defendant also stated that its correct name was Sholom Homes East, Inc., rather than Sholom Shaller Family East Campus.

Court’s analysis

The court held that Alexis had identified only one potentially actionable adverse employment action: his termination. The court concluded that requiring additional training and placing him on paid administrative leave were not adverse employment actions under the law.

For the discrimination claim, the court found that Alexis had not alleged enough facts to connect his termination to race, color, or national-origin discrimination. The documents cited in the complaint indicated that he was terminated for failing to undergo federally required COVID-19 testing. The court characterized that as a legitimate reason for termination and noted that Alexis did not dispute that he had not completed the required testing or informed Sholom that he had done so. The court also noted that Alexis did not allege that similarly situated white employees were exempt from testing or were not fired for refusing to be tested.

The court also concluded that the alleged harassment was not severe or pervasive enough to change the conditions of employment. The allegations involved a coworker’s report, an offensive comment, and residents’ accusations, including an apparent mistaken identification of Alexis as another Black employee.

For retaliation, the court explained that Alexis needed to allege protected conduct and a resulting adverse employment action. The court found no plausible causal connection between his alleged complaints and his termination. His complaint about the nurse manager’s comments occurred more than a year before the termination, and the court concluded that Sholom’s stated reason for firing him—failure to undergo required COVID-19 testing—defeated the alleged causal connection. The court said it was doubtful that some of Alexis’s alleged conduct qualified as protected conduct but resolved the motion based on the lack of a causal connection.

Disposition

Judge Paul A. Magnuson ordered that the motion to dismiss was granted and that the complaint was dismissed. The order directed that judgment be entered. It did not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.