Rubert v. King

Background

Jose Luis Rubert sued Walmart, Inc.; Walmart security guard Daniel King; Walmart store manager “Carry”; and Walmart assistant manager “Sam.” Rubert proceeded without a lawyer. He brought claims under Section 1981, a federal law prohibiting intentional race discrimination in contractual relationships; Title VII, the federal employment-discrimination law; and the New York State Human Rights Law. He alleged discrimination, retaliation, and harassment based on his race and national origin.

Rubert alleged that King sent text messages to Rubert’s wife falsely claiming that Rubert was having affairs with Walmart employees. Rubert said that King’s conduct damaged his marriage and that, after Rubert confronted King, King began a campaign of workplace harassment. Rubert alleged that King called him racial slurs, told coworkers that he was a drug addict, monitored him through store cameras, sent him messages, and otherwise tormented him. Rubert complained to Sam and Carry, but alleged that they did not stop King’s conduct.

On August 2, 2017, Rubert confronted King in a Walmart parking lot after King referred to Rubert’s daughters. Police arrested Rubert, reporting that he had cut King’s arm. The incident led to Rubert’s termination from Walmart and his conviction in Sullivan County Court. Rubert sought $7,000,000 for the loss of his job, wages, marriage, and alleged violations of company policy and discrimination laws.

Walmart moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). That rule tests whether a complaint alleges enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion and interpreted Rubert’s filings liberally because he was representing himself.

Title VII claims

The court dismissed Rubert’s Title VII claims. A Title VII plaintiff generally must first file a timely discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or another appropriate agency, before suing in federal court. In New York, the charge generally must be filed within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory conduct.

Rubert admitted that he had never filed such a charge. Because the latest alleged conduct occurred no later than his termination in 2017, the 300-day deadline had expired before he filed this action. The court rejected Rubert’s explanation that he did not know about the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. It also rejected his argument that Walmart had misled him into pursuing the matter through Walmart management first, because he waited well over 300 days after leaving Walmart to pursue legal remedies. The court therefore dismissed the Title VII claims.

Section 1981 and New York discrimination and retaliation claims

The court dismissed Rubert’s Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law claims based on his termination and other disparate treatment. The court explained that Section 1981 requires intentional discrimination and that race must have been the “but-for” cause of the adverse employment action. Rubert alleged that Walmart fired him because it viewed him as an expendable Hispanic employee, but the court found that allegation conclusory and unsupported by specific facts.

The court also relied on Rubert’s own allegation that the parking-lot confrontation, followed by his arrest and conviction, led to his termination. The court treated the altercation, arrest, and conviction as legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination. Rubert did not plausibly allege that race, national origin, or protected activity was the necessary cause of his firing. The court further rejected Rubert’s comparison between himself and King because they held different jobs and Rubert alleged that he, unlike King, had been arrested and convicted for assault.

The court dismissed the retaliation claims for similar reasons. Rubert did not plausibly allege that Walmart acted with retaliatory intent or that any protected activity was the necessary cause of his termination. The court dismissed the related New York State Human Rights Law discrimination and retaliation claims for substantially the same reasons.

Hostile-work-environment claims

The court allowed Rubert’s hostile-work-environment claims against Walmart and King under Section 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law to proceed. A hostile-work-environment claim requires allegations that discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, or insults were severe or frequent enough to change the conditions of employment and create an abusive workplace.

The court noted that this inquiry is fact-intensive and usually not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss. Although the amended complaint specifically identified one use of a racial slur, Rubert’s later filings stated that King used the slur repeatedly over a prolonged period. The court could not decide at the pleading stage that the alleged slurs were too isolated to support a claim. It also considered Rubert’s allegations that King spread false accusations, monitored him, sent him messages, and harassed him. When combined with the alleged racial slurs, those other acts could support an inference that the broader course of conduct was racially motivated.

Walmart argued that King’s conduct resulted from a personal dispute involving Rubert’s wife rather than racial hostility. The court declined to draw that inference in Walmart’s favor at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Walmart also had not developed arguments about whether and when it could be held responsible for King’s alleged conduct. The court therefore declined to resolve those issues and allowed the hostile-work-environment claims to survive. The court stated that the New York State Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims survived for substantially the same reasons.

Claims against Carry and Sam

The court dismissed all claims against Carry and Sam. Their names were incomplete, they had not been properly served, and Rubert did not file the amended complaint that the court directed him to file after Walmart provided identifying information. The court dismissed those claims for failure to properly name and serve the individuals and for failure to comply with the court’s orders.

Claims against King and disposition

The court did not hold Rubert’s failure to serve King against him. The U.S. Marshals Service had mistakenly believed that serving Walmart also served King, and the docket appeared to show that service had been completed. The court directed Walmart to provide, within 30 days, an address where King could be served. The court said it would then issue a renewed service order.

The court concluded that Walmart’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. It dismissed Rubert’s Title VII claims, his Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law claims based on disparate treatment, and all claims against Carry and Sam. It allowed the Section 1981 and New York State Human Rights Law hostile-work-environment claims against Walmart and King to continue. The court expressly stated that the dismissals were with prejudice.