Mintner v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation
2:24-cv-00427
E.D. Wis.Apr 16, 2024Background
- Samuel B. Mintner filed a pro se complaint against Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation.
- Mintner claimed that after objecting to racially discriminatory language and treatment of Black temporary employees by Milwaukee Tool management, he was terminated a few weeks later.
- Mintner began employment as an Engineering Technician on September 27, 2021 and was fired on November 1, 2021.
- He received a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC, indicating administrative remedies were exhausted.
- Mintner sought to proceed without prepayment of filing fees, claiming financial hardship but was found not indigent by the court due to his income and assets.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis | Mintner claims financial hardship justifies waiving filing fees. | Not specified | Denied; Mintner not found indigent. |
| Sufficiency of Title VII Discrimination Claim | Mintner was fired for objecting to racial discrimination/retaliation | Not specified | Sufficient claim under Title VII stated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Standard for plausibility in pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Pleading standard requires more than conclusory statements)
- Miller v. Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. Co., 203 F.3d 997 (Title VII covers job discrimination and retaliation)
- Dey v. Colt Const. & Dev. Co., 28 F.3d 1446 (Elements for a prima facie Title VII retaliation claim)
- Luevano v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014 (Complaint must allege sufficient facts to state claim)