Joiner v. Williams
3:24-cv-00204
| N.D. Miss. | Jun 30, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Joseph G. Joiner, a long-time Walmart employee, filed an EEOC complaint alleging race-based retaliation after prior protected activity.
- Walmart terminated Joiner while his EEOC charge was pending, but the EEOC did not address a retaliatory termination claim and issued a right-to-sue letter.
- Joiner initially named only a Walmart manager (Williams) as a defendant, then added Walmart in an amended complaint; claims against Williams under Title VII/ADEA were dismissed as not viable against individuals.
- Joiner sought to amend his complaint again to add a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 retaliation claim against both Walmart and Williams, but did not allege new factual material in support, and mistakenly checked a "termination" box, later clarifying he does not raise a termination claim.
- Walmart opposed the amendment, arguing futility (insufficient facts alleged), untimeliness, and improper revival of previously dismissed claims.
- The Court recognized leniency toward pro se litigants but required minimal pleading standards; allowed the § 1981 claim (non-termination) against both defendants to proceed, conditioned on correction of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of § 1981 retaliation claim | Protected activity + adverse actions | Not enough factual detail for plausibility | Sufficiently pled at this stage |
| Individual liability under § 1981 (against Williams) | Williams had managerial control | No new facts, improper revival of dismissed claims | Allowed claim if only under § 1981 |
| Addition of "termination" as adverse employment action | Checked box by mistake, not pursuing | Unduly delayed assertion of termination claim | Termination claim must be removed |
| Timeliness and futility of amendment | Filed within court deadlines | Amendment is untimely and futile | Amendment not unduly delayed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bourne v. Gunnels, 921 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2019) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards than those drafted by lawyers)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (facial plausibility is required in pleadings)
- Foley v. Univ. of Houston Sys., 355 F.3d 333 (5th Cir. 2003) (individual liability under § 1981 requires control over the employment decision)