Story v. Best Way Transp. Inc.

ROBERT STORY, JR., Plaintiff, v. BEST WAY TRANSPORTATION INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 3:19-cv-02704-M-BT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

August 4, 2020

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court in this pro se employment discrimination action is a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) filed by Defendants Best Way Transportation, Inc. (Best Way), Matt Dillon, Brett Witt, and Sonja Witt. For the reasons stated, the Motion should be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Background

Plaintiff Robert Story, who is African American, worked as a "CDL driver" for Best Way, a trucking company headquartered in Palmer, Texas. Compl. 2 (ECF No. 1); see also Resp. 4 (ECF No. 32). In his Complaint, Story alleges "everything was fine" when he started working at Best Way in April 2016, and he "had no issues or complaints from management . . . about [his] work performance or attitude, until mid[-]August, [2016]" when Randy, the night shift supervisor, began harassing him. Compl. 3-4. Ultimately, Best Way terminated Story's employment two months later, on October 21, 2016. Id. 13-14.

According to Story, the trouble with Randy began when Randy asked Story what he thought about President Obama. Id. 5. After Story responded that he was "not into politics," Randy allegedly stated that he disliked Latinos. Id. Story then asked Randy what he thought of the Black Lives Matter Movement, to which Randy purportedly stated, among other things, that he thought the movement was "a joke." Id. Story states that when he recounted this conversation his co-worker, Tommy, Tommy told Story that Randy is a racist and to stay away from him. Id. 6. When Story told Tommy that he planned to file a complaint about Randy with Yogi, the lead supervisor and mechanic, Tommy told Story that Yogi and Randy were best friends. Id.

Next, on August 22, 2016, although he would have been on time anyway, Story allegedly told Yogi that he needed to get his glasses repaired before reporting to work. Id. Story alleges that Yogi assumed he was trying to "get out of working" and told him he was fired, but that fifteen minutes later Yogi left Story a message recanting the termination and permitting Story to get his glasses fixed before work. Id. 6-7. Instead, Story reported to work with his glasses still in disrepair, planning to take them to get them fixed on his lunch break. Id. 7. But Yogi allegedly told him to go get them fixed and then take the day off. Id. Two days later, Story states that he was issued a written warning for coming to work without his glasses. Id. Jeff, the safety manager who issued the warning, purportedly told Story that "it was not his decision" to issue the warning and that he was just "follow[ing] orders." Id. Story alleges Yogi ordered Jeff to issue the warning. Id.

Then, on or about October 7, 2016, Story damaged the rim of a tire on his tractor. Id. 8. At the end of the day, he reported the damage to Randy and went home. Id. The next workday, Tommy allegedly told Story that after he had gone home the prior evening, Randy called Story a racial slur and said, "I'm going to get rid of his black ass, like the other[s] . . . before him." Id. Story reported Randy's racial comments to Yogi on October 13, 2016. Id. 9. Story also reported to Yogi that Randy had previously lied to Yogi about Story taking extended lunch breaks and leaving his shift early. Id. The following day, Defendants Brett and Sonja Witt, the president and vice president of Best Way asked Story to "watch a racially sensitive video and sign off[] that [he was] cooperative." Id. 10.

Later, on October 17, 2016, Yogi performed repairs on Story's truck. Id. The next day, Jeff allegedly told Story to ensure he always wore a seatbelt, despite the short distance he shuttles the trailers. Id. That same day, Story experienced problems with his steering wheel, but he was able to complete his work. Id. 10-11. When parking his truck at the end of his workday, he noticed a bar underneath his truck "with a wet substance around it." Id. 11. Tommy approached and told Story that the bar was his steering bar; that he was lucky it did not dislodge while on the roadway, as it surely would have caused him to have an accident; and that he happened to know from his experience working on his personal vehicle that steering bars "just can't fall off." Id. 12. Story alleges that, although employees are responsible for 30%, or up to $500.00, of costs to repair damaged equipment, when he reported the steering bar incident to Yogi, Yogi did not write the incidentup. Id. Story alleges that he became suspicious of Yogi and took a day off due to stress caused by this incident. Id. 13.

On October 20, 2016, Story returned to work. Id. That day, Tommy told Story that Randy had worn a confederate flag bandana to work "to upset" Story but that Jeff had told him to take it off. Id. Story alleges that he spoke to Jeff about this incident. Id. During that conversation, Jeff purportedly told Story that if he was asked about the situation he would "be a man and tell the truth." Id. Additionally, Story alleges that Tommy was asked if "he was the one who informed [Story] about the racial comments that Randy made," to which Tommy replied that "Randy has been getting away with things . . . for a long time" and if Story needed Tommy to testify in court, he would do so. Id. "About 30 minutes" after that exchange, Story alleges he was terminated "for insubordination and a few other things." Id. 14.

Based on this alleged conduct, Story filed his pro se Complaint on July 1, 2019 in the Central District of California asserting claims for "racial discrimination," "wrongful termination," "negligence," and "intentional infliction of emotional distress." Id. 17. The parties subsequently agreed to transfer the case to this Court. Defendants timely moved to dismiss, and the Motion is fully briefed and ripe for determination.

Legal Standard

When deciding a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court "accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205(5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, therefore, a plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "To be plausible, the complaint's '[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'" In re Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. LLC, 624 F.3d 201, 210 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). This pleading standard does not require "'detailed factual allegations,'" but it does demand more than an unadorned accusation devoid of factual support. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). "[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). "While legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Where the facts do not permit the Court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has stopped short of showing that the plaintiff is plausibly entitled to relief. Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court may not look beyond the pleadings. Spivey v. Robertson, 197 F.3d 772, 774 (5th Cir. 1999). However, the pleadings, for the purpose of determining a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, includedocuments attached to the pleadings and to the motion to dismiss so long as they "are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to [his] claim." Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498-99 (5th Cir. 2000)).

Analysis

Story titles his initial pleading, a "Civil Rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Compl. 1. The first page of his pleading further states: "Complaint for Damages[:] 1. Racial Discrimination (42 U.S. Code Chapter 21—Civil Rights), 2. Wrongful Termination (29 U.S. Code [§] 158 Unfair Labor Practices), 3. Negligence (19 U.S. Code §§ 1592—Penalties for Fraud, Gross Negligence, and Negligence U.S. Code. US Law, and 4. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (18 U.S. Code [§] 2340)." Id. Defendants argue Story's Complaint should be dismissed because he failed to state a claim for discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for negligence pursuant to 19 U.S.C. § 1592, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2340. Defendants further argue Story failed to allege enough facts to state a claim for race discrimination under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). The Court addresses these arguments in turn.

I. Story fails to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Defendants construe Story's Complaint as bringing a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and argue that because no defendant is, or is affiliated with, a state actor, such claim should be dismissed with prejudice. Mot. 3-4. In his response, Story concedes his "Discrimination and Retaliation causes of actionshould have been pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964[.]" Resp. 6 (ECF No. 32). Story has thus abandoned any claim under § 1983. To the extent he has not abandoned his § 1983 claim, however, it should be dismissed. "[F]or a plaintiff to state a viable claim under § 1983 against any private defendant, . . ....