Grazette v. Manpower

Background

David I. Grazette appeared without a lawyer and sued Manpower, Stefani Perez, Maximus, Shelly R. Lucas, and Rodney Menelas. He alleged “unfair business practices” and “defamation of character.” According to the complaint, he was dismissed from a COVID-19 vaccine operation on April 26, 2021—or approximately that date—after he refused to set up a network in the apartment where he lived. He alleged that he was then investigated and denied federal and state employment protections. He requested $22,888.

The court had granted Grazette permission to proceed without paying filing fees in advance. Because he was proceeding without a lawyer, the court read his complaint liberally, but it still had to dismiss claims that were frivolous, failed to state a legally sufficient claim, sought relief from an immune defendant, or fell outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

Employment-discrimination claims

The court construed Grazette’s allegations about being fired as possible employment-discrimination claims. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action and facts showing that a protected characteristic—such as race, color, sex, age, or disability—was a motivating factor in the decision. For an age-discrimination claim, the protected trait must also be the cause that would not have occurred “but for” the trait.

The court found that Grazette did not allege facts showing that the defendants acted because of a federally protected characteristic. He did not identify his race or any other protected characteristic. The court therefore could not determine that he was entitled to relief on an employment-discrimination claim. It invited him to amend if he could allege facts showing discrimination based on race, sex, age, disability, or another characteristic protected by federal law.

Administrative exhaustion

The court noted that Grazette did not allege whether he had filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The court explained that, although administrative exhaustion is not necessarily required to be pleaded in the complaint, a defendant may later argue that failure to exhaust bars an otherwise viable employment-discrimination claim. The court told Grazette that, if he had filed an agency charge, he could include the relevant information in an amended complaint.

Defamation and jurisdiction

The court held that defamation, slander, and libel do not themselves provide a federal cause of action. It treated Grazette’s defamation allegation as a state-law claim. Because Grazette did not currently state a federal claim, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction over a related state-law claim, at that time. The court also noted that Grazette had not alleged the facts needed to establish diversity jurisdiction, including the parties’ citizenship and a claim exceeding $75,000.

Leave to amend and disposition

The order dismissed the complaint but allowed Grazette to replead. The conclusion granted him 60 days to submit an amended complaint that completely replaced the original complaint and included the facts and claims he wanted the court to consider. The court instructed him to identify what each defendant did, when and where relevant events occurred, his injuries, and the relief requested. No summons would issue at that time, and the court stated that failure to amend by the deadline could lead to judgment dismissing the complaint without further advance notice.

The court also certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal. Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order on May 16, 2022.