Garnes v. ABM Janitorial Services, Inc.

Background

Mark Garnes filed this action without a lawyer against ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. He alleged that ABM discriminated against him because he is African-American and retaliated against him. He alleged that ABM first fired him in August 2012 along with other African-American employees, later reinstated him, reduced his work hours, withheld his wages, and fired him again on August 31, 2015. He also alleged that ABM breached a collective bargaining agreement with his union.

The court treated the allegations as potentially asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and state law. Garnes stated that he had not filed an administrative discrimination charge before bringing the case. He filed the complaint on March 11, 2022.

Court’s analysis

Because the court had allowed Garnes to proceed without prepaying filing fees, it was required to screen the complaint. The court explained that it must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, seeks money from an immune defendant, or fails to state a legally sufficient claim. It also explained that a complaint must include enough factual detail to make liability plausible, rather than merely reciting legal conclusions.

The court concluded that Garnes’s federal claims appeared to have accrued no later than about November 8, 2015. It explained that the relevant filing periods appeared to have expired: Title VII generally requires a timely charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or an appropriate state or local agency and a lawsuit within the applicable period after a right-to-sue notice; Section 1981 claims generally have three- or four-year limitation periods; Fair Labor Standards Act claims generally have two- or three-year periods; and hybrid collective-bargaining-agreement claims generally have a six-month period.

Although expiration of a filing period is ordinarily an affirmative defense, the court stated that dismissal at the screening stage is appropriate when untimeliness is clear from the complaint. Because Garnes was proceeding without a lawyer, the court gave him an opportunity to explain the timing of his claims before entering a final dismissal.

Disposition

The court dismissed Garnes’s federal claims for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. It granted Garnes 30 days to replead those claims in an amended complaint alleging facts showing that they were timely or that the applicable filing periods should be extended for equitable reasons. The court stated that if Garnes did not comply, it would enter judgment dismissing the federal claims and decline to consider the state-law claims under its supplemental jurisdiction. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.