Phillips v. Mattress Firm Inc.

Background

Tyler R. Phillips, representing himself, filed a federal-question complaint against Mattress Firm and Kia Williams. He alleged that he worked in sales at a Mattress Firm showroom in Union Square in Manhattan; that his manager falsely accused him of violating the dress code and causing a disturbance; and that he was fired for “gross misconduct.” Phillips alleged that he was then presented with a settlement agreement offering $9,500 and $15,000, which required him to accept full responsibility for what happened. He described the settlement process as rushed, manipulative, and deceitful. He sought money damages for losing access to unemployment benefits and for mental distress.

Screening and Section 1983 Claims

Because Phillips had been allowed to proceed without paying filing fees in advance, the court screened his complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court explained that such a complaint must be dismissed if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court treated Phillips’s allegations of violations of federal rights as claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To state such a claim, a plaintiff must allege both a violation of a federal right and action by someone acting for the state or another government body. The court concluded that Phillips had not stated a § 1983 claim because Mattress Firm and Williams were private parties, and the complaint did not allege that either worked for a state or other government body.

The court separately dismissed, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, any claims in which Phillips sought the criminal investigation or prosecution of the defendants. A private plaintiff cannot direct prosecutors or the court to bring a criminal case against someone else.

Possible Employment-Discrimination Claims

Phillips identified himself as Black, but the complaint did not allege facts suggesting that his firing was motivated by race, and it was unclear whether he intended to bring a race-discrimination claim.

The court granted leave to amend to assert a possible claim against Mattress Firm under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act if Phillips could provide sufficient supporting facts. The court stated that Title VII does not permit claims against individual employees, so Phillips could not state a Title VII claim against Williams. The court also granted leave to amend to assert a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which prohibits racial discrimination in contractual relationships, including employment, if Phillips could allege facts showing that either defendant discriminated against him because of his race. The court noted that the complaint did not indicate whether Phillips had pursued the required administrative steps for a possible Title VII claim.

State-Law Claims and Amendment

The court deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims because Phillips was being allowed to amend and the original complaint did not clearly identify state-law claims. The court also stated that the complaint did not suggest diversity jurisdiction.

The court granted Phillips 60 days to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint must identify the relevant people, describe what each defendant did or failed to do and when and where it happened, describe his injuries, and state the relief requested. It will replace, rather than supplement, the original complaint. If Phillips does not timely amend and cannot show good cause, the complaint will be dismissed for failure to state a claim. No summons will issue at this time. The court also denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal and certified that an appeal from the order would not be taken in good faith.