Thomas v. Thurston

Background

Caze D. Thomas, representing himself, sued Jeff Thurston, a supervisor at Thomas’s former employer, Five Star Electric Corporation. Thomas initially alleged that Thurston and another defendant conspired to violate his civil rights and human rights, harassed and discriminated against him, and wrongfully terminated his employment. Thomas later removed the second defendant, leaving Thurston as the only defendant.

Thomas alleged that Thurston discriminated against him based on sex and sexual orientation, particularly through Thurston’s involvement in ending Thomas’s employment. Thomas did not identify specific federal laws in his pleadings. In an earlier order, the court interpreted his claims as potentially arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court dismissed those claims because Title VII does not impose liability on individuals and Thomas had not alleged facts showing that Thurston acted as a state official. The court allowed Thomas to amend but warned that failure to correct those problems would result in dismissal with prejudice.

Thomas filed a Third Amended Complaint and separately moved for reconsideration of the earlier order. Thurston moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

Motion to Dismiss

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion asks whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support a legal claim. The court must accept factual allegations as true at this stage but does not accept legal conclusions presented as facts. The court also must read a self-represented litigant’s filings liberally, while still requiring a plausible claim.

The court found that the Third Amended Complaint was virtually identical to the Second Amended Complaint. The court concluded that the new pages did not adequately allege facts supporting Thomas’s federal claims against Thurston.

The court construed the Third Amended Complaint as potentially asserting claims under Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and 18 U.S.C. § 249(a), a federal criminal hate-crime statute. The court dismissed the Title VII and § 1983 claims for the same deficiencies identified in its earlier order.

The court also dismissed the other potential claims. It concluded that individuals cannot be held liable under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. It concluded that § 1981 does not cover the sex or sexual-orientation discrimination Thomas alleged. Finally, it concluded that § 249(a) is a criminal statute that does not allow a private person to bring a civil lawsuit.

The court granted Thurston’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.

Motion for Reconsideration

Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available only when there has been a change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice in the earlier decision. The court found that Thomas had identified none of those grounds. Thomas relied on a 1994 Fordham Law Review article and an unidentified later decision from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, but the court found those materials insufficient to revisit its earlier conclusions.

The court denied Thomas’s motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted Thurston’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. Because the court had previously warned Thomas that failure to correct the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal with prejudice and without permission to amend again, the court dismissed Thomas’s complaint with prejudice. The court also denied Thomas’s motion for reconsideration, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motions, and closed the case.