Burch v. Embassy Suites/Step Stone Hospitality
- Donovan Frank
- 0:23-cv-02689
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In Burch v. Embassy Suites/Step Stone Hospitality, Judge Frank dismissed the race-discrimination case without prejudice and denied Burch’s fee-waiver application.
Gordon Lamont Burch’s case was dismissed without prejudice, and his application to proceed without paying the filing fee was denied. Embassy Suites/Step Stone Hospitality was not required to respond to the complaint.
What happened
Burch v. Embassy Suites/Step Stone Hospitality involved Gordon Lamont Burch’s allegations that his former employer terminated him and retaliated against him because of his race. He asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court reviewed the complaint before requiring the employer to respond. It found that the complaint contained almost no facts explaining what discriminatory actions occurred, and that an email to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission could not serve as the complaint. Burch had been given 30 days to file an amended complaint but did not do so.
Judge Donovan W. Frank dismissed the case without prejudice under the federal statute governing review of fee-waiver cases and denied Burch’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The detailed version
- Burch v. Embassy Suites/Step Stone Hospitality · No. 0:23-cv-02689
- Donovan Frank
- Nov. 7, 2023
Background
Gordon Lamont Burch alleged that Embassy Suites/Step Stone Hospitality terminated his employment and retaliated against him because of his race. Burch applied to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Court’s review
Because Burch sought fee-waiver status, the court was required to review his complaint before service under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Under that statute, the court must dismiss an action if the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The court accepted factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences in Burch’s favor, but noted that a complaint must include enough facts to make the requested relief plausible. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer liberally, those complaints still must allege facts supporting the claims.
The court agreed with a prior order by Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz that Burch’s complaint contained almost no factual allegations. It did not explain what form the alleged race discrimination took or why Burch believed he had been subjected to discriminatory actions. The court treated Burch’s general statement that he had been discriminated against as a conclusion rather than a factual allegation entitled to be presumed true.
Burch also submitted an email he had sent to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during its investigation. The court ruled that the email could not be used as the pleading. It found the document difficult to follow, included information that did not appear relevant to the lawsuit, and did not clearly identify which allegations were the subject of the case. As a result, the defendant could not reasonably be expected to answer or otherwise respond to it.
Disposition
Burch had been warned about the pleading deficiencies and given 30 days to submit an amended complaint. He did not submit one or otherwise respond to the magistrate judge’s order. Judge Donovan W. Frank concluded that the complaint did not state a viable claim for relief and ordered that the action be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court also DENIED Burch’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.