Johnson v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC

Background

Joseph Johnson, proceeding without a lawyer, sued his employer under Title VII, alleging religious discrimination. The complaint identified the defendant as “The Westin NY at Times Square/Marriott International,” but the opinion states that Johnson works for Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, LLC. The court directed the clerk to amend the caption to use Starwood’s name.

Johnson alleged that he was harassed from 2015 to 2022, that a coworker mocked his religion in text messages, and that the employer required him to take COVID-19 tests twice per week after granting his request for a religious exemption from the employer’s vaccination policy. He also alleged that the employer denied his request to change shifts because of bad weather. The complaint and its exhibits totaled 439 pages, and Johnson’s opposition added 67 more pages.

Title VII Claims

The court dismissed Johnson’s discrimination claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court explained that a Title VII discrimination claim requires allegations that the employer took a disadvantageous action against the employee because of religion or another protected characteristic.

The court found that Johnson did not identify an employment action connected to the alleged coworker incidents. He did not allege that the employer terminated or demoted him, or otherwise changed his employment because of the text messages or the incident involving a coworker who hit him with a car door.

The court also concluded that any hostile-work-environment claim failed because Johnson had not alleged that the incidents were sufficiently severe or widespread to alter his working conditions, or that the employer could be held responsible for the coworkers’ conduct.

The court found no religious-discrimination claim based on the COVID-19 testing requirement because Johnson did not allege that he objected to testing for religious reasons. The court likewise found no Title VII failure-to-accommodate claim based on the denied shift change because Johnson said he requested it because of difficulty driving in bad weather, not because of his religion.

Exhaustion and Other Statutes

Starwood argued that Johnson had not exhausted the administrative procedures generally required before bringing a Title VII claim in federal court. The court declined to dismiss on that ground because failure to exhaust was not clear from the face of the complaint and its attached documents.

The court dismissed any other claims based on the statutes Johnson listed. It stated that federal and state criminal statutes do not provide a private right of action for a person to enforce them. It also concluded that Johnson had not alleged conduct covered by the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act because the complaint did not allege that his employer was an entity covered by that statute.

Rule 8 and Disposition

The court stated that dismissal also would have been proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief. The court found that the complaint’s length, organization, and lack of a clear narrative made it difficult to determine what claims Johnson was asserting and did not provide fair notice.

In the conclusion, Judge Arun Subramanian dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted. Because Johnson was representing himself and had not previously had an opportunity to amend, the court granted him leave to file an amended complaint by August 1, 2024. The court also directed the clerk to amend the caption and terminate the defendant’s dismissal motion, docket entry 32.