Griffin v. Jack in the Box

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. [ECF No. 3]IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process to issue on plaintiffs complaint as to defendant Jack In The Box.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 2] 3 2 Signed by District Judge Jean C. Hamilton on 6/13/18. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD GRIFFIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACK IN THE BOX,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:18-CV-488 JCH

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Edward Griffin, a 53-year-old man, seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
this civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq., for employment discrimination on the basis of gender and
age. Based on plaintiff’s financial affidavit, the motion is granted. For the following reasons,
the Court will order process to issue on defendant Jack In The Box.
Standard of Review
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma
pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
To state a claim for relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” and
“[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere
conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

A plaintiff must

demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.”
Id. at 679. “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.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and
common sense. Id. at 679.
When reviewing a complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the Court accepts the well-pled
facts as true. Furthermore, the Court liberally construes the allegations.
Discussion
According to his complaint and his EEOC charge of discrimination, on June 14, 2007,
plaintiff was hired by defendant Jack In The Box as a team leader and assistant manager.
Starting in May 2015, plaintiff began noticing female employees of less seniority than plaintiff
were given raises. Plaintiff asked about his raise, and is supervisor Crystal Robinson told him
that he had already reached his pay limit. Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the
EEOC arising out of this treatment.
When the EEOC contacted Jack In The Box regarding plaintiff’s charge of
discrimination, plaintiff’s supervisors scheduled a meeting with plaintiff and gave him a $10 per
hour raise.

The following week, however, Ms. Robinson began cutting plaintiff’s hours.

Plaintiff asked why his hours were reduced, and Ms. Robinson stated she had to cut hours.
Plaintiff alleges no other employees’ hours were cut, and several younger female employees
were working overtime. Plaintiff states that Ms. Robinson continued cutting his hours, continued
giving overtime to younger female employees, and continued hiring younger female employees.
Plaintiff returned to the EEOC and filed another charge of discrimination.1 He alleges he was
discriminated against based on his gender and age, and seeks $20,000.00 in compensation.

1

Plaintiff’s right-to-sue letter from the EEOC is dated December 27, 2017. See ECF No. 1-4.
Plaintiff filed this employment discrimination case 92 days later, on March 29, 2018.
“Generally, the ninety-day filing period begins to run on the day the right to sue letter is received
at the most recent address that a plaintiff has provided the EEOC.” Hill v. John Chezik Imports,
2

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, a plaintiff must show:
1) that he or she is a member of a protected class, (2) that he or she was meeting the employer’s
legitimate job expectations, (3) that he or she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4)
that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently. E.g., Tolen
v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 879 (8th Cir. 2004). Under the ADEA, it is unlawful for an employer to
“fail to hire or to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual . . .
because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). Having carefully reviewed and
liberally construed plaintiff’s complaint, the Court finds plaintiff has stated a plausible claim of
employment discrimination against defendant Jack In The Box under the Title VII and the
ADEA, and will order the Clerk to issue process on the complaint.
Additionally, plaintiff has filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which the Court
will deny at this time. There is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil
cases.

Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir. 1984).

In

determining whether to appoint counsel, the Court considers several factors, including (1)
whether the plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations supporting his or her prayer for
relief; (2) whether the plaintiff will substantially benefit from the appointment of counsel; (3)
whether there is a need to further investigate and present the facts related to the plaintiff’s
allegations; and (4) whether the factual and legal issues presented by the action are complex. See
Johnson v. Williams, 788 F.2d 1319, 1322-23 (8th Cir. 1986); Nelson, 728 F.2d at 1005.

869 F.2d 1122, 1123 (8th Cir.1989) (emphasis added). The document is presumed received three
days after mailing. See Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1 (1984)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e) and finding that a notice of right-to-sue issued on January 27 was
presumed to have been received January 30). The Court, therefore, presumes plaintiff received
the right-to-sue letter on December 30, 2017. This action is timely because it was filed within 90
days of December 30, 2017.
3

Plaintiff has presented non-frivolous allegations in his complaint. However, he has
demonstrated, at this point, that he can adequately present his claims to the Court. Additionally,
neither the factual nor the legal issues in this case are complex. The Court will entertain future
motions for appointment of counsel as the case progresses.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
GRANTED. [ECF No. 3]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause
process to issue on plaintiff’s complaint as to defendant Jack In The Box.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel is
DENIED without prejudice. [ECF No. 2]
Dated this 13th day of June, 2018.

/s/ Jean C. Hamilton
JEAN C. HAMILTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4