Johnson v. Wendy's Restaurant Corporation

Background

Robert W. Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Wendy’s Corporation, Great Lakes Management LLC, and Julie Lopez. He alleged that he was terminated from his job at a Wendy’s restaurant and discriminated against because of age, race, gender, and national origin. He also alleged a hostile work environment, failure to promote, and failure to accommodate disabilities.

The amended complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and what the court treated as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Johnson alleged that he was Black, approximately thirty-six years old, and had post-traumatic stress disorder and other permanent disabilities. He sought very large amounts of damages and ownership of Defendants’ corporations.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and submitted affidavits, personnel records, and payroll records. Johnson did not file an opposition or otherwise respond, even after the court extended his deadline twice. Defendants also gave him notice that the court could treat the motion as one for summary judgment.

Conversion to Summary Judgment

Because Defendants submitted matters outside the pleadings that Johnson had not relied on in preparing his amended complaint, the court converted the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the case and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

The court stated that Johnson’s failure to oppose the motion did not automatically require judgment for Defendants. It still had to review Defendants’ submissions and determine whether they showed that no material factual dispute remained and that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Statutes of Limitations

Defendants argued that Johnson’s claims were time-barred. The evidence showed that Great Lakes employed Johnson from August 10, 2012, through August 28, 2012, and that he had not worked for Great Lakes since then. Johnson filed this action on August 30, 2019. He alleged that he filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on December 3, 2019—after starting this lawsuit and more than seven years after his employment ended.

The court explained that Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act generally require an administrative discrimination charge within 300 days of the alleged discriminatory act. It also explained that the limitations periods for the other claims were three or four years, depending on the claim. Because the alleged employment events occurred in 2012 and the case was filed in 2019, the court held that all of Johnson’s claims were time-barred. The court found no apparent exception that could preserve them.

Other Reasons Discussed by the Court

The court stated that the claims would also fail for additional reasons even if they were not time-barred. It explained that Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act do not permit claims against individual supervisors such as Lopez. It also held that Johnson could not bring an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim because he was under forty years old.

The court further stated that Johnson could not hold Wendy’s liable because the evidence showed that Wendy’s never employed him and did not control Great Lakes’ daily operations or employment decisions. The evidence described Great Lakes as the Wendy’s franchisee responsible for employment decisions, including hiring and firing.

Ruling

Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil converted Defendants’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment and granted it. The court concluded that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The clerk was directed to close the case.

The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Johnson permission to appeal without paying the filing fees. The opinion does not state that the case was dismissed with prejudice or without prejudice.