PIERCE v. ROTH et al
Filing
31
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 01/13/2014. For the foregoing reasons, this court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to his third cause of action for retaliation. RECOMMENDED that Defendant's motion to dismiss be GRANTED and Plaintiff's claim for retaliation be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. (Taylor, Abby)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
JOHN M. PIERCE, SR.,
)
)
Plaintiff
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
V
UNIVERSAL STEEL OF NORTH
CAROLINA, LLC,
Defendant.
13CV158
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is befote the court on Defendant Univetsal Steel of
Noth
Carolina's
("Univetsal Steel") motion to dismiss Plaintiffls tetaliation claim pursuant to Federal Rule
of
Civil Procedute 12þ)(6). @ocket E.rt y 27.) PlaintiffJohn M. Pietce, St. filed
in
a response
opposition to Defendant's motion @ocket Entty 30) and the mattet is ripe for disposition.
Fot the following reasons, it is tecommended that the court grant Defendant's motion to
dismiss.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff fìled this action against Universal Steel on February 25, 201.3, alleging racial
discrimination and tetaliation in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of
@ocket F,ntry 2.) On July 4,201.3, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
Compl., Docket Errtry
26.) Plaintiff
alleges he was hired
(See
1964.1
generalþ Am.
by Triad Steel in 1.996 and
continued employment with Universal Steel after its acquisition of Triad rn 2006. (Id. \fl1,0,
1
Richard Roth, Plaintiffls supervisor, was originally named as a defendant as well. Roth was
byastipulationof dismissalonJune 74,2073. (DocketF;ntry20.)
^s^party
dismissed
1,
11.) FIe was employed
Shear
Opetator. (1d.ffi
as a Burn Table Opetatot and occasionally petformed tasks as
1,2-1,3.)
Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant in December
a
201.1..
(rd.1147.)
Plaintiff, an Afrtcan-American, alleges that at the time of his tetmination he was being
paid eleven dollars and eighty-six cents ($11.86) per hout. (Id.
11
15.) FIe contends that one
white employee who was hired afterPlaintiff to perfotm "many of the sâme tasks"'was "paíd
approximately fourteen dollars per
hout," ard that another white male who wotked
a
different job was paid"a higher hourþ wage" than Plainrff. (Id. TlT 18-21.)
Plaintiff further alleges that Richard Roth was hked by Defendant as Ptoduction
Managet in February 201,1,. (1d.1[27.) Plaintiff alleges that he was watned by the ptevious
Ptoduction Manager that Roth "did not like Blacks and Guatemalans" and that throughout
the course of Roth's tenure he made "derogatory, steteotypical, and bigoted temarks to
fPlaintiffl disparaging non-white employees," incidents which occutred, on average once or
¡u¡ice a week.
Qd.ln 28-30.) Plaintiff alleges that he btought his "concerns to management
on multiple occasions" (id. fl 39) and that his complaints led to his eventual tetmination.
Qd.
1164.)
Plaintiff alleges that in October
severì other employees were being laid
201,'1,
off.
he was informed by Roth that Plaintiff and
(1d.1[
40)
white, while two were Aftican-American, including
several
Six of the laid-off employees wete
Plaintiff. (Id.) In November
20'1.1,
of the laid-off employees were called back to wotk; howevet neither of the African-
Amedcan employees was asked to return. (1d.ffi 41,-42.) When Plaintiff contacted Roth
about not being hired back, Roth told him his position was being outsourced.
2
(Id.ll 44.) On
or about December
1.5, 201,1,,
Plaintiff received a letter stating that his employment with the
Defendant was being terminated. (Id.Í146.) The othet Aftican-,,4.merican employee was also
tetminated
Qd.
n 47.) Plaintiff alleges that since his dismissal, Defendant has hfued sevetal
new white employees to teplace hirn. (Id. T 45.)
Attached to the complaint is a copy of the Chatge of Discrimination Plaintiff fìled
with the Equal Employment Opport"nity Commission ("EEOC") ot March 5,
Q)ocket E.ttty 26-1,.)
In this charge, Plaintiff states that he believed that he was
discriminated against based
on his nce-African--Americam-and tetaliated
complaining about ncial discrimination in violation of Title
II.
20'1,2.
VII.
against fot
(Id.)
DISCUSSION
Rlile 12(b)(6)
A
defendant may seek dismissal
of a complaint for "fatlure to state a claim upon
which relief can be gtanted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12þ)(6). A motion to dismiss fot failute to
state a claim is granted
if the complaint does not allege "enough facts to sta;te
relief that is plausible on its f^ce;'
Be//
At/.
^
claim to
Corþ. u. Twombþ,550 U.S. 544, 570 Q007).
In
order to be "plausible on its face," the factual allegations must "be enough to taise a right to
telief above the speculative level." Id. at 555. The plaintiff does not need to demonsffate in
a
complaintthat the right to relief is probable, but the complaint must advance the plaintiffls
claim "across the line ftom conceivable to plausible."
IWalters u.
MtMalten, 684 F.3d 435,439
(4th Cit. 201,2). As explained by the United States Supteme Court:
A
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the teasonable infetence that the defendant is liable
fot the misconduct alleged. The plausibility standard is not al
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?