Chaney Littlejohn v. Thompson Electric Company

Filing 29

ORDER denying 28 Motion to Set Aside 26 Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 3/14/16. (copy w/nef mailed to pro se filer) (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
CARL L. CHANEY LITTLEJOHN,
No. C15-4013-MWB
Plaintiff,
vs.
THOMPSON ELECTRIC COMPANY,

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
PRO SE MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Defendant.
___________________________
This case is before me on plaintiff Carl L. Chaney Littlejohn’s pro se motion to
reconsider (docket no. 28). In his motion, Littlejohn requests that I reverse my prior order
granting defendant Thompson Electric Company’s Motion to Dismiss. Littlejohn asserts
that he has alleged facts which support his claim that Thompson Electric retaliated against
him for filing a grievance with his union, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title
VII”). Littlejohn does not state the authority under which he brings his current motion. I
conclude that he is asking me to rethink my prior ruling.
In my order granting Thompson Electric’s Motion to Dismiss, I concluded that
Littlejohn’s filing of a union grievance could only constitute protected activity if that action
represented an intent to complain about discriminatory employment practices within the
meaning of Title VII. See Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 271 (2001) (per
curiam) (holding that standard requires that reasonable person believe conduct complained
of violated Title VII). I determined that Littlejohn’s filing of a union grievance, concerning
overtime pay, did not represent an objection to discrimination and, therefore, was not
protected activity within the meaning of Title VII. See Melie v. EVCI/TCI College Admin.,
374 Fed. App’x 150, 153 (2d Cir. 2010) (holding that union grievances that do not
complain of discrimination do not constitute a “protected activity”). In his motion to

reconsider, Littlejohn points to alleged facts which he asserts establishes the validity of his
union grievance concerning overtime pay. Nothing about these facts, however, persuade
me that my conclusion that Littlejohn’s union grievance filing was not protected activity
within the meaning of Title VII was incorrect. Accordingly, Littlejohn’s pro se motion to
reconsider is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 14th day of March, 2016.

______________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

2