Rust, Vanessa v. Alter Metal Recycling

Filing 4

ORDER dismissing 1 complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Amended complaint due 9/20/2016. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 8/30/2016. (jef),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

VANESSA RAE RUST,
Plaintiff,
v.

OPINION & ORDER

ALTER METAL RECYCLING,

16-cv-003-jdp

Defendant.
Pro se plaintiff Vanessa Rust has filed a proposed complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging claims against her former employer, defendant Alter Metal Recycling. Dkt. 1. The
court allowed plaintiff to proceed without prepaying her filing fee.
The next step in this case is for me to screen plaintiff’s complaint and dismiss any
portion that is legally frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, or asks for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money
damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. In screening any pro se litigant’s complaint, I must read the
allegations of the complaint generously. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (per
curiam). After reviewing the complaint with this principle in mind, I conclude that plaintiff
has failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 because she has not provided a
short and plain statement of a claim against Alter Metal. I will therefore dismiss her
complaint and give her an opportunity to file an amended complaint.

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
Plaintiff currently resides in Elk River, Minnesota. She worked for Alter Metal from
2011 to 2012, at the company’s facility in Eau Claire, Wisconsin. Alter Metal is a scrap
metal recycling company.
Plaintiff was injured in January 2012, while she was working for Alter Metal.
Although plaintiff does not provide details about job there or her injury, she alleges that she
“was injured due to a flaw in Alter’s newly upgraded system [and] lack of help from the men,
due to sexual discrimination.” Dkt. 1, at 3 (original emphasis). Alter Metal fired plaintiff two
weeks after her injury “without any opportunity to defend [herself]; despite being told there
would be an Investigation & that they themselves documented that I was a ‘good worker.’”
Id. (original emphasis).
In the years after her termination, plaintiff pursued unemployment insurance benefits,
and she filed charges of discrimination with the Wisconsin Department of Workforce
Development—Equal Rights Division and with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. She received a “dismissal and notice of rights” in November 2015. Id. at 5.
During these administrative proceedings, plaintiff discovered that her coworkers had lied
about the events surrounding her injury.
Plaintiff filed suit in this court on January 4, 2016. She seeks an investigation into her
injury, physical therapy, and damages for back pay.

ANALYSIS
Under Rule 8, plaintiff must present “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that [she] is entitled to relief.” The purpose of the requirement is “to provide the

2

defendant with ‘fair notice’ of the claim and its basis.” Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751
(7th Cir. 2011). Here, plaintiff appears to allege that Alter Metal violated her rights under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her on the basis of her sex.
But even construing the complaint liberally, I conclude that plaintiff has failed to comply
with Rule 8 because she has not alleged facts that amount to unlawful discrimination. I will
therefore dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. But I will give plaintiff an opportunity to amend her
complaint.
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against their employees on the basis
of sex. 42. U.S.C. § 2000e-2. The law covers several types of discrimination: unlawful
termination, hostile work environment, quid pro quo harassment, and retaliation. Here, I
construe plaintiff’s complaint as alleging either that she was unlawfully terminated, or that
she endured a hostile work environment, or both.
For an unlawful termination claim, plaintiff must allege that she was fired because of
her sex. Plaintiff has not alleged facts that would allow her to succeed on an unlawful
termination claim. She indicates that Alter Metal fired her without giving her an opportunity
to defend herself. But she does not allege that Alter Metal’s decision was discriminatory. If
plaintiff pursues her unlawful termination claim in her amended complaint, then she must
explain why she believes that Alter Metal fired her because of her sex.
As for a hostile work environment claim, plaintiff must allege that: (1) she was subject
to unwelcome harassment; (2) the harassment was based on her sex; (3) the harassment was
severe or pervasive enough to alter the conditions of her employment; and (4) there is basis
for employer liability. Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook Cty., 804 F.3d
826, 833-34 (7th Cir. 2015). “To rise to the level of a hostile work environment, conduct

3

must be sufficiently severe or persuasive to alter the conditions of employment such that it
creates an abusive relationship.” Id. at 834 (original emphasis). And for Alter Metal to be
liable as an employer, plaintiff must allege either that “a supervisor [was] responsible for the
harassment,” or that “the harassment is done by a co-worker and the employer [has] been
negligent in failing to prevent the harassment.” Cooper-Schut v. Visteon Auto. Sys., 361 F.3d
421, 426 (7th Cir. 2004).
Although I can infer from the complaint that plaintiff experienced sexual harassment,
she has not alleged any of the other elements of a hostile work environment claim. If plaintiff
pursues her hostile work environment claim in her amended complaint, then she must
describe the harassment that she endured and explain why Alter Metal is liable for that
harassment.
At this point, plaintiff has not provided a short and plain statement of a claim against
Alter Metal, so she has failed to comply with Rule 8. I will therefore dismiss her complaint.
But I will give plaintiff a short time to file an amended complaint that alleges facts to support
her Title VII claims. If plaintiff fails to timely amend her complaint, I will dismiss this case
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The complaint is DIMISSED for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. Plaintiff Vanessa Rae Rust may have until September 20, 2016, to
file an amended complaint that provides a short and plain statement of a claim
against defendant Alter Metal Recycling.

4

2. If plaintiff fails to timely amend her complaint, I will dismiss this case for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Entered August 30, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
/s/
________________________________________
JAMES D. PETERSON
District Judge

5