Evans v. Absolute Results

Background

Dallas X. Evans brought a self-represented action against Absolute Results under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. He alleged employment discrimination based on race and color. On the employment-discrimination complaint form, he also selected claims for retaliation, harassment, disparate treatment, and constructive termination. The complaint stated that he was a former employee, but where the form asked for supporting facts, it said “see attached,” and no attachment describing the events was included.

The complaint stated that Evans currently resided in Rochester, New York, and had been employed in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice of the right to sue showed a New York City address for Evans and a Des Moines, Iowa address for Absolute Results.

Screening Standard

Because Evans had been allowed to proceed without paying the filing fee, the court reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also must dismiss a case when it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read self-represented complaints generously, the complaint still must provide a short and plain statement with enough factual detail to make the claim plausible.

Discrimination Claims

The court explained that Title VII and § 1981 prohibit employment discrimination based on protected characteristics and also prohibit retaliation for opposing unlawful discrimination. At the pleading stage, a plaintiff must plausibly allege that the employer took adverse employment action and that race, color, or another protected characteristic was a motivating factor.

The court held that Evans’s complaint did not state a claim under Title VII or § 1981 because it provided no facts explaining what occurred. It therefore did not show that Absolute Results took adverse action against him because of a protected characteristic. The court granted Evans leave to file an amended complaint showing that the employer took adverse action because of his race and color.

Venue

For Title VII claims, venue may be proper where the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, where relevant employment records are maintained, where the plaintiff would have worked absent the alleged unlawful practice, or, in some circumstances, where the employer’s principal office is located. Based on the complaint, the court said that if the relevant events occurred in Cedar Rapids and Absolute Results’s principal office was in Des Moines, venue in the Southern District of New York was likely not proper, even though Evans had lived in the district when he filed his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaint and later lived in Rochester.

For § 1981 claims, the general federal venue statute applies. The court said Evans had not alleged that Absolute Results resided in, was subject to jurisdiction in, or committed a substantial part of the relevant events in the Southern District of New York. Venue therefore did not appear proper for those claims. The court also stated that, even if venue were proper, it could transfer the case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court granted Evans leave to amend. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim, identify relevant persons and their titles, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, provide dates and locations when possible, explain how the conduct violated Evans’s rights, describe his injuries, state the relief sought, and address venue.

The amended complaint will replace the original complaint rather than supplement it, so any facts or claims Evans wants to maintain must be included in the new filing. He must submit it to the court’s Pro Se Intake Unit within 60 days, label it “Amended Complaint,” and include docket number 21-CV-00280 (LLS). No summons would issue at that time. If Evans failed to comply and could not show good cause, the court stated that the complaint would be dismissed for failure to state a claim. The order also stated that if a later amended complaint adequately stated a claim but showed improper venue or that transfer was appropriate, the court would transfer the case to a proper venue.