Green v. Wipro Limited

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court GRANTS Wipro's 10 Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court GRANTS Mr. Green 14 days to file an amended complaint that states a cognizable cause of action. Mr. Green's new complaint, if he wishes to file one, will be due July 13, 2017. Signed by Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre on 6/29/17. (SAC )

FILED
2017 Jun-29 PM 01:28
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DAVID ADAM GREEN,
Plaintiff,
v.

WIPRO LIMITED,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 2:16-CV-01697-KOB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se Plaintiff David Adam Green sued Defendant Wirpo Limited for “biased and unfair
employment practices” and “wrongful termination.” (Doc. 1 at 1). Wipro has moved to dismiss
Mr. Green’s complaint because of improper service and failure to state a claim. (Doc. 10). Because
the court finds Mr. Green’s complaint fails to state a claim, the court GRANTS Wipro’s motion
and DISMISSES Mr. Green’s complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. In addition to the
substantive arguments offered against Wipro’s motion, Mr. Green asked for leave to amend his
complaint. The court GRANTS Mr. Green’s request and gives him 14 days from the date of this
order to file an amended complaint.
I.

BACKGROUND
Mr. Green’s complaint contains a section entitled “Claims,” which provided a brief

summary of relevant facts, but does not invoke particular causes of action. Mr. Green claims he did
not receive performance reviews, was never informed why or when his role changed, did not
receive a clear description of his duties and the management structure, did not receive support in
finding roles, and was not told of a requirement for him to bill a certain number of hours. Finally,
1

Mr. Green alleges that Wipro did not follow its own termination procedures and showed favoritism
and preference to less qualified employees with closer relationships to management.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The

Supreme Court explained that “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If the court determines that well-pleaded facts,
accepted as true, do not state a claim that is plausible, the claim must be dismissed. Id. at 679.
III.

DISCUSSION
In response to Wipro’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Mr. Green argues that

the complaint alleges that Wipro “acted wrongfully” and “against [his] best interest” by
“wrongfully terminating” him. (Doc. 22 at 2). Neither Mr. Green’s complaint nor his response to
the motion to dismiss reference specific causes of actions. Construing Mr. Green’s complaint
liberally, his claim against his employer is that it treated him inequitably.
Such facts do not state a claim for relief under either federal or state law. Federal civil
rights statutes do not prohibit unfair treatment. See, e.g, Coutu v. Martin County Bd. of County
Com'rs, 47 F.3d 1068, 1074 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Unfair treatment, absent discrimination based on
race, sex, or national origin, is not an unlawful employment practice under Title VII.”). Under
Alabama law, an at will employment relationship “may be terminated by either party with or
without cause or justification.” Bell v. S. Cent. Bell, 564 So. 2d 46, 48 (Ala. 1990). Absent the
existence of an employment contract, Wipro was under no obligation to follow a particular
procedure to discharge Mr. Green. The complaint contains no allegations of a contractual
relationship between the parties, and nothing shows that Mr. Green was entitled to three months’
2

worth of severance pay plus the cash equivalent of three months of COBRA payments.
Therefore, Mr. Green has failed to state a claim upon which this court can grant him relief.
Because the court will grant Wipro’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(6), it need not
consider whether service of the complaint was proper.
IV.

CONCLUSION
The court GRANTS Wipro’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and

DISMISSES the complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The court GRANTS Mr. Green 14 days
to file an amended complaint that states a cognizable cause of action. Mr. Green’s new complaint,
if he wishes to file one, will be due July 13, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2017.

___________________________________
KARON OWEN BOWDRE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3