Stevens v. Zimmerman
1:15-cv-00078
| D.N.D. | Jul 31, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Karvelas Stevens, an African-American inmate, filed a pro se employment-discrimination complaint while incarcerated and was granted in forma pauperis status.
- Stevens alleges racial discrimination by his former employer, Zeco, Inc., leading to his termination.
- Defendants named include Zeco, Inc., and individuals Bill Zimmerman, Paul Thompson, and Jeff Widener.
- The complaint’s factual allegations specifically implicate Zeco, Inc.; Zimmerman and Thompson appear only in the caption with no factual allegations tying them to discriminatory acts.
- Stevens alleges Widener told him to get his belongings and leave and to call about possible reinstatement, but facts are insufficient to show Widener engaged in racial discrimination.
- The matter is before the court on screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) to determine whether claims should proceed or be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint states a claim under Title VII / § 1981 against Zeco, Inc. | Stevens alleges race-based termination by Zeco | Zeco not fully litigated at screening; no responsive argument in R&R | Court: Not prepared to conclude no claim; Zeco may proceed pending service unless amended complaint alters result |
| Whether complaint states claims against Zimmerman and Thompson individually | Zimmerman and Thompson are named as defendants | No factual allegations showing their involvement | Court: Dismiss Zimmerman and Thompson without prejudice for failure to plead involvement |
| Whether complaint states a claim against Widener individually | Stevens alleges Widener told him to take belongings, leave, and call back | Allegations are limited and do not expressly allege racial motivation | Court: Allegations insufficient as pleaded; dismiss Widener without prejudice unless amended complaint cures deficiency |
| Whether plaintiff may amend or proceed only against Zeco | Stevens may amend to add facts | Defendants rely on screening standards | Court: Stevens has 60 days to amend; if no amendment, proceed only against Zeco; if amended, re-screening will occur |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim; courts accept factual allegations as true)
- Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585 (8th Cir. 2009) (application of Iqbal/Twombly in Eighth Circuit)
- Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2004) (pro se complaints are liberally construed but courts will not supply unpled facts)
- Wright v. St. Vincent Health Sys., 730 F.3d 732 (8th Cir. 2013) (Title VII and § 1981 provide substantially similar recovery theories for intentional race discrimination)
- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976) (Title VII prohibits discharge because of race)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (complaint must provide fair notice of discrimination claims)