Stalling v. T3 Trading Group LLC

Background

David Stalling, representing himself and proceeding without paying the filing fee, applied to be a trader with T3 Trading Group, LLC. After a phone interview, he was directed to submit a check for $245 for Financial Industry Regulatory Authority exam-registration fees, identification, and proof of address. He alleged that he submitted his identification, which identified him as Black, but did not allege whether he submitted the check or proof of address. He was told that the trading position depended on passing two exams. On September 8, 2020, the company’s Director of Compliance told him that his application would not move forward but gave no reason.

The court noted that documents attached to Stalling’s original complaint had reflected T3’s position that he was applying to become a member of the trading group rather than an employee. An Equal Employment Opportunity Commission notice also stated that the charge was being closed because Stalling was not in an employment relationship with T3. Because those documents were not attached to the amended complaint, the court assumed at this stage that T3 was a potential employer, as Stalling alleged.

Title VII claim

The court screened the amended complaint under the statute governing complaints filed by people who cannot pay filing fees. It was required to dismiss a complaint that was frivolous, malicious, failed to state a claim for relief, or sought relief from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a self-represented complaint must contain enough factual detail to make the claim plausible, not merely possible.

For a Title VII employment-discrimination claim, the plaintiff must plausibly allege an adverse employment action and facts showing that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a motivating factor in the decision. The court held that Stalling’s allegations did not directly show race discrimination and did not create a plausible inference of discrimination indirectly. The fact that his partially completed application did not move forward after he submitted materials from which his race could have been learned was insufficient without additional facts. The court therefore found that the amended complaint failed to state a Title VII claim.

Section 1981 claim

For a race-discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the court explained that a plaintiff must allege membership in a racial minority, an intent to discriminate based on race, and discrimination involving an activity protected by the statute. The plaintiff must also allege that, without the plaintiff’s race, the defendant would not have caused the loss of the protected right.

The court held that Stalling’s allegations that he submitted some application materials, including identification showing his race, and was not hired were insufficient to create a plausible inference that T3 discriminated against him because of race. The court therefore found that the amended complaint failed to state a Section 1981 claim.

Amendment and state-law claims

The court declined to give Stalling another opportunity to amend. It explained that he had already been given an opportunity to correct the deficiencies and that the amended complaint gave no indication that further amendment could cure them.

After dismissing the federal claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction—the authority to hear related state-law claims—in the early stage of the case. The state-law claims were dismissed without prejudice to Stalling’s bringing them in an appropriate forum.

Disposition

The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). It declined under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied Stalling permission to appeal without paying filing fees. The order was signed by Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain.