Burroughs v. Federal Express Corporation

Background

Derrick Burroughs, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Federal Express Corporation and John Does 1–10. He alleged that FedEx wrongfully terminated his employment after the loss or misplacement of a high-value shipment. According to the amended complaint, the shipment was last accounted for at a FedEx facility in Newark, New Jersey, about nine minutes after Burroughs began his courier shift at a FedEx facility in Manhattan. Burroughs alleged that this showed he could not have been present in Newark to perform the scan. He also alleged that he handled about 4,000 packages that day, did not handle the missing package, and was later told that another employee had pre-loaded his truck.

The amended complaint asserted claims for denial of due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, loss of consortium, negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Burroughs also alleged that his termination violated FedEx’s internal investigative procedures.

Motion and Report

FedEx moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 12(h)(3). The court referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Sarah J. Netburn, who issued a Report and Recommendation. The report recommended granting FedEx’s motion as to all defendants and dismissing the amended complaint without leave to amend. The report also considered possible employment-discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, even though the amended complaint did not cite those statutes.

Burroughs objected primarily to the report’s employment-discrimination analysis. He also argued that dismissal would violate his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The court explained that specific objections receive fresh review, while conclusory or repetitive objections are reviewed for clear error. It found no clear error in the portions of the report to which Burroughs did not specifically object and treated his employment-discrimination objections as conclusory and repetitive.

Employment-Discrimination Claims

The court held that the alleged facts could not support a claim under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. For Title VII and age-discrimination claims, Burroughs did not allege facts supporting an inference that FedEx terminated him because of his sex or age. His statements that he was fired because he was a man or because he belonged to a protected age group were conclusory. The court also noted that the pleadings did not state Burroughs’s age.

The court likewise found no facts supporting the required elements of a disability-discrimination claim, including that Burroughs had a disability, was qualified to perform his job with or without reasonable accommodation, or was fired because of a disability. The court characterized Burroughs’s allegations as essentially claiming that he was wrongly accused of stealing from his employer and terminated as a result, which did not state a claim under any of those statutes.

Jury-Trial Demand and Disposition

The court rejected Burroughs’s argument that the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial before dismissal. It explained that the jury-trial right does not prevent a judge from dismissing a case when the pleaded facts, even if proven, would not establish a legally valid claim. The court therefore denied Burroughs’s demand for a jury trial.

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer adopted Judge Netburn’s Report and Recommendation in full. The court dismissed Burroughs’s claims with prejudice, declined to issue a certificate of appealability, and certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to proceed without paying fees for purposes of an appeal and directed the clerk to close the case.