March v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
1:23-cv-00194-RJJ-PJG
| W.D. Mich. | Jul 28, 2023Background
- Plaintiff Kayleigh March worked as a Securitas-contracted security officer at a Honeywell facility.
- Honeywell implemented a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on October 13, 2021; March applied for a religious exemption which was denied.
- March was terminated on or about December 22, 2021, and alleges wrongful termination and religious discrimination.
- March claims she received a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC and sued in state court; defendants (Securitas and Honeywell) removed to federal court.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; March did not respond to the motions.
- The magistrate judge recommends granting the motions, dismissing federal claims for failure to state a claim (or for waiver), and declining supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether March alleged a sincerely held religious belief for a Title VII reasonable-accommodation claim | March sought a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate (implying a religious belief) | Defendants argue the complaint lacks factual allegations identifying a sincere religious belief | Dismissed: March failed to plead what her religious belief was, so accommodation claim is inadequate |
| Whether March alleged discriminatory wrongful termination under Title VII | March alleges termination after denial of her exemption, implying discrimination | Defendants argue there is no direct evidence and no allegations she was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees | Dismissed: March did not allege disparate treatment or other facts supporting an inference of discrimination |
| Whether failure to respond to motions constitutes waiver | March did not file any response to the motions to dismiss | Defendants rely on case law that non-response forfeits opposition | In the alternative, motions granted for waiver because March did not oppose the motions |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | March asserted state-law claims in the complaint (if any) | Defendants seek dismissal of federal claims and avoidance of state claims in federal court | Court declines supplemental jurisdiction and recommends dismissing state claims without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts need not accept legal conclusions; plausibility standard)
- In re NM Holdings Co., LLC, 622 F.3d 613 (6th Cir.) (Rule 12(b)(6) standard explained)
- Tepper v. Potter, 505 F.3d 508 (6th Cir.) (elements of Title VII religious-accommodation claim)
- United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (supplemental jurisdiction considerations)
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (failure to file timely objections waives appellate rights)