Felder v. Atria Builders

Background

Sean G. Felder filed the action without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that Atria Builders, identified as his former employer, and individual defendants Ed Grunwall and Mike Ferg uski discriminated against him because of his race. Felder alleged that he had worked for three years as firewatch security and that he was terminated by telephone after returning from vacation. He connected the termination to an issue involving bedbugs at a construction site and described it as a plot by upper management.

In the original complaint, Felder checked boxes indicating possible claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The court previously directed him to amend because the original allegations did not suggest that the employer acted because of race or race-based hostility and did not allege that he was at least 40 years old or that age motivated the adverse action. Felder filed an amended complaint and later filed two letters complaining about Atria Builders’ conduct.

Court’s analysis

Because Felder was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, the court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). That statute requires dismissal of a qualifying complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

The court held that Felder’s allegations still did not state a claim under Section 1981. Although the amended complaint identified his race as Black, it did not allege facts suggesting that the defendants’ conduct was motivated by racial hostility. The court also held that the Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims remained insufficient. Felder did not allege facts suggesting that his employer took adverse action because of his race. He did meet the age requirement for an age-discrimination claim based on the birth year he provided, but he did not allege facts suggesting that his age caused the termination.

Disposition

The court dismissed Felder’s Section 1981 claims for failure to state a claim. It also dismissed his Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims for failure to state a claim. The court declined to grant another opportunity to amend because Felder had already amended the complaint and the court concluded that the defects could not be cured through further amendment. Judge Louis L. Stanton therefore dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).