Johnson v. Wendy's Restaurant Corporation

Background

Robert W. Johnson appeared without a lawyer and brought the action under the court’s federal-question jurisdiction. He sued WENDYS CORPORATION, GREAT LAKES RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT, LLC, and JULIE LOPEZ. The court had previously allowed him to proceed without prepaying filing fees.

Johnson alleged that he was terminated from a WENDYS CORPORATION restaurant at 1685 Grand Island Blvd., Grand Island, New York, without an explanation. He alleged that a staff manager identified as Jane Doe immediately told him to leave and verbally ridiculed him. He further alleged discrimination based on age, race, gender, and origin, that he was not given a fair hearing, and that he was not paid for his labor. He sought $500,200,000,000,000 in damages and 100% ownership of the defendants’ corporations.

Court’s analysis

Because Johnson was proceeding without a lawyer and without prepaying fees, the court reviewed whether his complaint was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or came within the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. The court explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, rather than merely recite legal conclusions.

The court construed the complaint as asserting employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. For the Title VII and § 1981 claims, Johnson needed facts plausibly showing that the defendants took adverse employment action because of a protected characteristic. For an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim, he needed to allege that age was the cause of the adverse employment action.

The court found that Johnson had not alleged facts suggesting that the defendants acted against him because of his race, color, religion, sex, ancestry, ethnic characteristics, national origin, or age. The opinion also notes that Johnson did not disclose his age. The court did not decide whether discrimination actually occurred.

Ruling

Chief Judge Colleen McMahon granted Johnson leave to amend his complaint. The amended complaint had to provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, the addresses of the named defendants, the names and titles of relevant people, the relevant events and their dates and locations, what each defendant did or failed to do, how those acts violated Johnson’s rights, his injuries, and the relief he sought.

The court stated that the amended complaint would replace the original complaint rather than add to it. Johnson had to submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 19-CV-8157 (CM). No summons would issue at that time. If Johnson did not comply and could not show good cause, the action would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.