D.J.S. v. Experis US LLC

Filing 7

ORDER DISMISSING 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C Dries on 10/23/2024. Steward may have until November 18, 2024, to file a second amended complaint. (cc: all counsel and mailed to pro se party)(kah)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
DEMARCUS STEWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 24-CV-970-SCD

EXPERIS US LLC,
Defendant.
ORDERING DISMISSING AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Proceeding without the assistance of counsel, on August 1, 2024, Demarcus Steward
filed an employment discrimination complaint against Experis US LLC, a Wisconsin
healthcare IT staffing company. See ECF No. 1. Because Steward asked to proceed without
paying the filing fee, ECF No. 2, I screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and
dismissed it because Steward failed to allege any facts connecting Experis’ employment
decision to his race or sex, ECF No. 5. I gave Steward leave to file an amended complaint,
which the court received on October 10, 2024. See ECF No. 6.
The amended complaint does not cure the deficiencies in the original complaint. As
explained previously, the pleading standard for employment discrimination claims is low: “To
survive screening or a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need only allege enough facts to allow for
a plausible inference that the adverse action suffered was connected to [his] protected
characteristics.” Kaminski v. Elite Staffing, 23 F.4th 774, 777 (7th Cir. 2022) (citing Graham v.
Bd. of Educ., 8 F.4th 625, 627 (7th Cir. 2021)). The amended complaint does not meet this
standard. Steward asserts that Experis falsified employment records and refused to hire him

because he’s an African American male. See ECF No. 6 at 3, 9–11. However, the amended
complaint contains too few factual allegations about his race and sex. Steward again alleges
that each person he dealt with at the company was white and most were women. See id. at 8–
9. That fact, however, does not plausibly suggest that the company treated Steward differently
because of his race or sex. Steward also alleges that Experis’
unjustifiable racially motivated discriminatory actions and display of blatant
female chauvinism directed toward and projected upon the Plaintiff in the form
of falsifying work history, falsifying work experiences, internal manipulation
within communications, gross negligence, and hierarchical insubordination
derives from racial (ethnic) and gender biases, biases that have manifested
themselves into multiple forms of discrimination.
Id. at 9–10. Those labels and legal conclusions will not do. Steward does not allege any facts
to support his allegation that the company was biased against African Americans or men.
Thus, he has again failed to state a claim on which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Accordingly, the court DISMISSES the amended complaint, ECF No. 6. Steward may
have until November 18, 2024, to file a second amended complaint. To survive screening, the
second amended complaint must contain facts that allow for a plausible inference—not just a
mere possibility—that Experis’ refusal to hire him was connected to his protected
characteristics. The court reminds Steward that, if he files a second amended complaint, it
will replace the prior complaint and must be complete without reference to the original
complaint. See Reid v. Payne, 841 F. App’x 1001, 1002 (7th Cir. 2021). If Steward fails to file a
second amended complaint by November 8, this action may be dismissed for failure to
prosecute. I will wait until then to address Steward’s request to proceed without paying the
filing fee.

2

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of October, 2024.

__________________________
STEPHEN C. DRIES
United States Magistrate Judge

3