Chambers v. Bakery

KAYOKA D. CHAMBERS, Plaintiff, v. BIMBO BAKERY, and BIMBO BAKERIES USA, INC., Defendants.

No. 8:19CV200

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

April 29, 2022

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Richard G. Kopi, Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the court upon review of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (filing 11) to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed this action on May 6, 2019 and was given leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Filing 1; Filing 5.) On April 8 2020, the court conducted its initial review and determined that Plaintiff's pleading failed to satisfy the minimal pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. (Filing 6.) However, the court gave Plaintiff until May 8, 2020, to file an amended complaint asserting plausible claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (“Title VII”), and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-1101 to 48-1125 (“NFEPA”).

On April 17, 2020, the court directed Plaintiff to update her address with the court because the copy of the Memorandum and Order on initial review was returned to the court as undeliverable. (Filing 8.) Plaintiff updated her address on May 4, 2020 (filing 9), and the court, on its own motion, extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint to June 6, 2020. (Filing 10.) Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint on May 21, 2020. (Filing 11.)

II. SUMMARY OF AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff utilized the Pro Se 1 Form Complaint for a Civil Case for her Amended Complaint and attached a four-page handwritten letter to the undersigned; her Charge of Discrimination filed with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (“NEOC”) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claiming discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, and sex; and approximately one hundred pages of supplemental materials.^[1]Liberally construed, Plaintiff seeks damages from her former employer, Defendants Bimbo Bakery and Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendants”), for discrimination and harassment based on Plaintiff's race, color, sex, and sexual orientation and for retaliation.

In her “Statement of Claim, ” Plaintiff alleges the following:

I was fired for no reason. I was harrassed, i was belittled, i was told lesbians are not suppose to be leads. i was discriminate race, sex. I have documents I took my job serious and loved what i did as a lead. i lost everything i have for no reason. i need justice, for the highest dollar amount, that you have [75, 000]. Words can't express how hurt and emotional i am. Bimbo belittled me in every shape, form, fashion.

(Id. at CM/ECF p. 4.)

In the handwritten letter attached to her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff includes the following allegations:

i went to hr 1st and let her know i was being harrast by richard williams. i thought and felt they were professional to get to the bottom of why i was being treated in such way when i have done nothing wrong but did my job.

...

i was attacked, harrased called out my name, all because i went to hr to let them know i was feeling belittled. I thought hr is suppose to help you but after talking to hr i felt like maybe they will call richard williams in the office and troy allen but no they just swept it under the rug now at this time im not only being attack by the supervisor richard im being attack by my peers. They would say here come the HR Snitch!?? Troy allen would say black lesbians not suppose to hold a 2nd shift lead position[.]

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 6, 8.)

In her attached Charge of Discrimination filed with the NEOC and EEOC, Plaintiff alleged she is “Black and Female, ” had worked for Defendants from May 3, 2010 to June 22, 2018, “most recently as a Lead, ” and had filed a previous charge of discrimination on December 23, 2013. (Id. at CM/ECF p. 10.) Plaintiff claimed she had been discriminated and retaliated against based on “race, color, [and] sex, female, for not conforming to sex stereotypes about how women are expected to present themselves in my physical appearance, actions and/or behaviors” in violation of Title VII and the NFEPA. In support of her claims, Plaintiff alleged the following:

1. On March 22, 2018, I was sexually harassed when I learned that Floor Supervisor Richard Williams (Male, Black) had pulled employee Cassandra Penn (Female, Black) over to side, and told her that he had heard that she and I were out in the parking lot in my car yesterday, and her clothes were halfway off getting intimate. Mr. Williams was spreading this untrue rumor to other employees as well. I complained about this to Production Manager Troy Allen (Male, White), but he took no action, so I then complained to Human Resources about the sexual harassment, and the fact that Mr. Williams was also harassing me by disrespecting me in huddles, something he never did to the Male Leads. Human Resources conducted an investigation, but Human Resources Representative Yasmine (Last Name Unknown-LNUK, Female, Non-Black) called me in and asked me to let things die down, otherwise Mr. Williams would be let go, and she alleged he was essential to the Respondent.

2. Following my complaint, the harassment continued, in that Mr. Williams told everyone I was a snitch on other matters as well, and other employees started calling me ‘1-800 HR snitch.' I was then subjected to different terms and conditions of employment when supervisor did not back me up when I attempted to enforce Respondent policies. For example, if I reported to a supervisor that an employee wasn't wearing the proper PPE, or their shirts were untucked, or they had their cell phones on the floor, in violation [of] policy, instead of handling the situation, the supervisor would tell the employee that they were bringing it up because I had told them to, and Mr. Williams would tell people I would call the hotline on them. This continued throughout my employment.

3. On June 14, 2018, Yasmine suspended me for allegedly harassing and threatening an employee, which I deny. I was not told who I allegedly harassed or threatened, but was told that someone reported that I had stated when I became a supervisor I would write them up and fire them, or have my son come down to beat them up, all of which I deny. While I was on suspension, Mr. Williams told other individuals that I was suspended because I had been in the locker room watching a Mexican employee undress, which was untrue.

4. On June 22, 2018, the Respondent terminated my employment, for allegedly harassing and threatening another employee, which I deny. I had never received any disciplinary actions prior to my suspension, and I was never spoken to during the course of the investigation. Other employees have made threats and not been terminated, including Nick Abdo (Male, Non-Black, Laborer) who told Supervisor Leo to go kill himself, before walking out on the job for three days, and he was allowed to return to work without being written up.

5. My performance to date was satisfactory.

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 10-11.)

III. APPLICABLE STANDARDS ON INITIAL REVIEW

The court is required to review in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate. The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion of it that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Pro se plaintiffs must set forth enough factual allegations to “nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, ” or “their complaint must be dismissed.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569-70 (2007); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).

“The essential function of a complaint under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to give the opposing party ‘fair notice of the nature and basis or grounds for a claim, and a general indication of the type of litigation involved.'” Topchian v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 760 F.3d 843, 848 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Hopkins v. Saunders, 199 F.3d 968, 973 (8th Cir. 1999)). “A pro se complaint must be liberally construed, and pro se litigants are held to a lesser pleading standard than other parties.” Topchian, 760 F.3d at 849 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is “discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework.” Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980).

Liberally construed, Plaintiff here asserts claims for race and sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. A plaintiff need not plead facts sufficient to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination in his or her complaint. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 511-12 (2002) (holding a complaint in employment discrimination lawsuit need not contain “facts establishing a prima facie case, ” but must contain sufficient facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face), abrogated in part on other grounds by Bell Atlantic Corp. v Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Cook v. George's, Inc., 952 F.3d 935, 939-40 (8th Cir. 2020). However, the elements of a...