Polite v. VIP Community Services

Background

Derrick Polite, proceeding without a lawyer, sued VIP Community Services under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He alleged that VIP discriminated and retaliated against him by not providing equal pay and by terminating his employment. The complaint also suggested a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because Polite alleged that a younger former Clinical Director was paid more than he was.

The opinion states that Polite worked for VIP as Clinical Director of the Ryan White Program. In a letter attached to his complaint, he said his employment ended after he reported a coworker’s inappropriate touching of two staff members and another coworker’s use of racist and other derogatory names toward staff members. He also asserted that employees in the Ryan White Program were paid according to salary, except for him. The opinion describes the complaint as unclear.

Court’s Analysis

Because Polite had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. It also explained that pleadings filed without a lawyer are read liberally, but still must provide enough facts to make a claim plausible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.

The court concluded that, even reading the complaint as generously as possible, Polite had not alleged facts suggesting that VIP discriminated or retaliated against him because of a characteristic protected by Title VII or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court noted that he did not identify his race, color, religion, national origin, or age and did not allege facts connecting the adverse employment actions to a protected characteristic or protected opposition to unlawful conduct.

Rulings and Case Status

The court granted Polite leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint had to provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim, identify relevant people and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how the conduct violated his rights, describe his injuries, state the requested relief, and provide addresses for named defendants. The amended complaint would replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint.

The court denied Polite’s application for a lawyer without prejudice to renewal later because it was too early to assess the merits of the case. The clerk was directed to mail the order to Polite and note service on the docket. No summons was to issue at that time. The court warned that if Polite did not timely amend and could not show good cause for the failure, the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order states that all other pending matters were terminated.