Flander v. KForce Inc
4:12-cv-00713
S.D. Tex.Nov 1, 2012Background
- Flander filed suit in this district alleging background-check practices violated federal law and Title VII; action transferred from the Northern District of Texas.
- Plaintiffs claims center on defendants’ use of criminal background information and fingerprint results to deny employment at JP Morgan Chase.
- Defendants include Kforce Inc. and Dyck (staffing), and JP Morgan Chase and Jim Sykes (JPMC employee/screener); service issues are central.
- Plaintiff sought summary/default judgments based on alleged failure to respond and lack of record evidence.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for improper service and failure to state a claim; Plaintiff filed responses and a “Motion to Quash.”
- Court treated the matter as a dismissal-for-service-prompted suit and recommended dismissal with prejudice due to service failures and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was proper on all defendants | Plaintiff contends service was inadequate or improper. | Defendants argue lack of proper service and unclear intended targets. | JPMC and Sykes not properly served; Kforce not properly served; dismissal recommended under 4(m). |
| Whether Dyck's claims against her are legally viable under Rule 12(b)(6) | Plaintiff asserts claims under §1983, §1985, §1986, and Title VII survive. | Dyck moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. | Dyck granted 12(b)(6) dismissal for failure to state a claim. |
| Whether §1983/§1985/§1986 and Title VII retaliation/sex-discrimination claims fail | Plaintiff argues conspiratorial and discriminatory conduct violated federal law. | Defendants contend claims lack state action, class-based animus, or protected activity linkage. | Claims dismissed for lack of state actor status, lack of protected-class conspiracy, and no protected activity. |
| Whether the action should be dismissed under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) for frivolousness | Plaintiff seeks relief despite asserted evidence defects. | Defendants urge dismissal as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. | Action dismissed with prejudice under §1915(e)(2)(B). |
Key Cases Cited
- Iqbal v. United States, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (standard for pleading plausibility; no mere possibility standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Wyatt v. Cole, 504 U.S. 158 (U.S. 1992) (state action requirement for § 1983)
- In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) (pleading and dismissal standards in complex litigation)
- Pervasive Software Inc. v. Lexware GmbH & Co. KG, 688 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2012) (personal jurisdiction and threshold jurisdiction considerations)