Albert v. Genesis 2k

Filing 13

ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 7/26/13 denying 6 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. See Order. (cc: all counsel) (nm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
CHRISTOPHER ALBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 13-CV-62-JPS

GENESIS 2K, d/b/a Genesis Group,
Defendant.

ORDER

Plaintiff Christopher Albert (“Albert”) filed suit against his former
employer, defendant Genesis 2k (“Genesis”), alleging that Genesis
discriminated against him when it discharged him on the basis of his
religious orientation, that Genesis failed to provide a work environment free
of religious harassment, and that Genesis was a hostile workplace and
unlawfully discriminated against him due to his religious orientation.
(Compl.). Presently before the court is Genesis’s motion to dismiss the
complaint. (Docket #6). As explained below, Genesis’s motion will be denied.
1.

Legal Standards
Genesis brings this motion to dismiss under Federal Civil Rule of

Procedure 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the
sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint by asserting that he failed to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To
survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), Albert’s complaint must
allege facts sufficient to “state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”
Justice v. Town of Cicero, 577 F.3d 768, 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). The court construes the complaint in the light
most favorable to the claimant, accepts as true all well-pleaded facts alleged,

and draws all possible inferences in the claimant’s favor. Tamayo v.
Blagojevich, 526 F.3d 1074, 1081 (7th Cir. 2008).
2.

Background
Albert began working for Genesis as a Security Officer in December

of 2007. Albert asserts that, over the course of his employment with Genesis,
he was subjected to frequent religious proselytization by Genesis’s
management. Albert states that Genesis included bible verses along with
each paycheck. Albert also claims that management encouraged him to join
their church on a number of occasions, that each time Albert responded that
he was fine with his own religious beliefs, and that management began
discussing Albert’s work performance following these attempts at
conversion. In his complaint, Albert relays one experience from January 2009
when his grandmother and brother passed away within the same week.
When he discussed the matter with Genesis’s owner, Anthony Sherman, and
with Chief Pablo Valezquez, they responded by encouraging Albert to pray.
Sherman also stated that Albert’s brother was taken by Jesus in order to
break Albert down and to build him up with a stronger faith in God. Albert
alleges that he was denied promotions, and that employees with shorter
employment histories, and even some who Albert trained, were promoted
above him. Albert started losing hours and was taken off accounts; finally,
on August 3, 2009, Genesis discharged Albert.
3.

Analysis
Genesis first argues that Albert’s complaint and claims for damages

must be dismissed because Albert fails to allege what statutes have been
violated. The court disagrees as a descriptive matter. The caption of the
complaint is “Plaintiff’s Complaint for violations under Title VII;

Page 2 of 5

Discrimination against Ethnicity and Religious Orientation.” (Compl. at 1).
Further, while the complaint does not provide specific statutory citations, the
invocation of Title VII, along with the facts as articulated in the complaint,
certainly provide “enough detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests….” Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1083.
The court will not grant Genesis’s motion to dismiss on the basis of this
argument.
Genesis next argues that Albert’s complaint does not adequately
allege religious discrimination because he does not plead facts establishing
two prongs of the four-prong prima facie case as articulated in McDonnell
Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). More specifically, Genesis asserts
that Albert’s complaint must be dismissed for failure to allege that Albert
performed his job according to Genesis’s legitimate performance
expectations, and that Genesis treated Albert less favorably than it treated
similarly-situated employees outside his protected class. In support of its
argument, Genesis cites one case articulating the elements of the prima facie
case, and no cases supporting its contention that a complaint is insufficient
if it does not allege each element.
In 2002, the United States Supreme Court rejected Genesis’s exact
argument, on several grounds. First, the Court explained that the McDonnell
Douglas prima facie framework “is an evidentiary standard, not a pleading
requirement.” Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 510 (2002). Second,
the Court explained that requiring a plaintiff to plead each element of the
McDonnell Douglas framework would be illogical because “the McDonnell
Douglas framework does not apply in every employment discrimination case.
For instance, if a plaintiff is able to produce direct evidence of discrimination,
Page 3 of 5

he may prevail without proving all the elements of a prima facie case.” Id. at
511. Instead, the Court confirmed that a plaintiff in an employment
discrimination case need only plead a “short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Id. at 512 (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
Pro. 8(a)(2)). Genesis’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to allege
all elements of a McDonnell Douglas claim will be denied.
Genesis advances an identical argument regarding Albert’s hostile
work environment claim. Genesis argues that Albert has not adequately
alleged the claim because Albert did not assert that any hostile work
environment affected a term or condition of employment. Because this is part
of a prima facie case for a religious discrimination case, Genesis argues,
Albert’s complaint is insufficient. But again, a prima facie framework is an
evidentiary standard, not a pleading standard. Genesis’s motion will not be
granted on this argument.
Finally, Genesis argues that plaintiff’s first and second claims are
“confusing and redundant.” The complaint articulates claims one and two as
“Hostile Workplace Discrimination” and “Failure to provide a work
environment free of religious harassment,” respectively. The court agrees
that some clarification would be helpful, but is confident that plaintiff can
refine his claims during discovery. If the claims are in fact redundant, one
may be excised at a later date.
In conclusion, none of Genesis’s arguments establish its entitlement
to dismissal at this juncture. Albert’s complaint, while perhaps imperfect,
gives “enough detail to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and
the grounds upon which it rests.” Tamayo, 526 F.3d at 1083. As such, it is
sufficient to satisfy civil pleading standards.
Page 4 of 5

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Genesis’s motion to dismiss (Docket #6) be and
the same is hereby DENIED.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 26th day of July, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

J.P. Stadtmueller
U.S. District Judge

Page 5 of 5