Concannon v. International Cruise & Excursions, 6:18-cv-02093

Plaintiff Michael Concannon, pro se, sued International Cruise & Excursions alleging employment discrimination based on “gender/sex” arising from his sexual orientation, plus retaliation and harassment, and sought backpay and punitive damages.
Alleged incidents: anti-gay comment by a senior manager (Apr 2015); written discipline accelerated; disputes over commission credit/pay following a Sept 2015 cruise; complaints to HR; termination on Jan 2, 2016 after threatening EEOC charge.
Concannon filed an EEOC charge; EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on Sept 5, 2018 (received Sept 14, 2018); suit filed Dec 5, 2018.
Concannon moved to proceed in forma pauperis; the magistrate reviewed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Rule 12(b)(6) standards (Twombly/Iqbal).
Court concluded Title VII sexual-orientation discrimination claims are foreclosed in this Circuit and recommended dismissal of the Title VII claim without prejudice.
The magistrate recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction over the Orlando City anti-discrimination ordinance claim and granting leave to amend once to cure deficiencies and specify jurisdictional/pleading facts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Title VII covers sexual-orientation discrimination	Concannon alleges discrimination and retaliation because of his sexual orientation and complaints to HR	Defendant argues Title VII does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation under controlling Eleventh Circuit precedent	Dismiss Title VII sexual-orientation claim (without prejudice); Eleventh Circuit precedent forecloses such claims
Whether plaintiff stated a retaliation/discharge claim under Title VII for complaining about commissions/manager	Concannon says termination was retaliation for complaining about commissions and reporting manager’s comment	Defendant: absent a protected-class predicate or Title VII-prohibited practice, ordinary workplace grievances are not Title VII retaliation	Dismiss—plaintiff failed to plead Title VII-protected basis for retaliation; claim not cognizable under Title VII
Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over local ordinance claim (Orlando City Code §57.14)	Concannon asserts a violation of the local anti-discrimination ordinance based on sexual orientation	Defendant implicitly argues (and record lacks) federal jurisdictional basis; local remedies and timing requirements exist under the ordinance	Recommend decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismiss the ordinance claim; advise plaintiff to pursue local procedures if timely

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (in forma pauperis dismissal standard: frivolous if lacking arguable basis in law or fact)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient under plausibility standard)
Evans v. Georgia Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir. 2017) (Eleventh Circuit: sexual-orientation discrimination claim not actionable under Title VII)
Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1979) (historical precedent that Title VII does not bar discharge for homosexuality)
Holland v. Gee, 677 F.3d 1047 (11th Cir. 2012) (elements to establish prima facie Title VII discrimination)
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (standards for exercising supplemental jurisdiction)