Bakkali v. Walmart, Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 20-CV-3440 |
| Parties | MOHSSIN BAKKALI Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC. Defendant |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
This civil rights action is now before this Court on Motion of the Defendant, Walmart, Inc. to Dismiss the Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth in the paragraphs which follow, the motion shall be granted in part.
This case has its origins in a visit to a Walmart Store (Store No. 5649) located in Warrington, Bucks County, Pennsylvania on March 25, 2019. On that date, Plaintiff Mohssin Bakkali, a naturalized United States Citizen who was born in Morocco and raised Muslim, went to the Warrington Walmart Store dressed for work in a three-piece suit and wearing "a knit cap due to the cool temperatures," to purchase several items for his limousine business. (Pl's Compl., ¶s 10-13). Upon entry to the store, Plaintiff alleges that he was confronted in the vestibule by a female Walmart employee who came directly up to him and stated: "Jesus Christ is the only savior." (Compl., ¶14). Plaintiff avers that he moved away from this employee, (whose name he later discovered was "Brenda") but she "persisted and continued to harass him," ... "repeated her previous statement directly to [him]." At that point, Plaintiff "politely asked her to repeat herself and she did so, moving closer to him," repeating her prior declaration that "Jesus Christ is the only savior" and adding that "any other believers are wrong." (Compl., ¶18). Plaintiff further alleges that he "asked her to apologize and she refused, aggressively adding "[Allah] is teaching you tough things to go around the world to do." (Id.)
According to the plaintiff, "[t]his encounter took place in full view of the Customer Service desk, which was manned by at least three other Store employees." (Compl., ¶19). None of these other employees, however, stepped forward or made any attempt to intercede with Brenda. (Id.) Mr. Bakkali goes on to aver that he then extricated himself from this conversation, took his cart and attempted to do his shopping but as he was walking through the store, he noted that one of the employees that had been in the Customer Service area was following himthrough the store. (Compl., ¶20). "This surveillance frightened and upset" him such that while he had come to the store with a list of items to purchase, "he was so distraught that he could not finish shopping and went to check out with only one item in his cart." (Id.) At checkout, however, Plaintiff alleges that he (Compl., ¶21). Plaintiff went to speak with the manager, who identified herself as "Megan," recounted the harassment he suffered simply, he felt, because of his ancestry and ethnic characteristics, but Megan made no effort to assist him, reprimand Brenda or take any action at all. (Compl., ¶s 21-22). Plaintiff left the store unable to complete his purchase. (Compl., ¶22).
Plaintiff contacted Walmart a few days later to complain about the discriminatory treatment he had received at the Warrington store and received an email from one "Emily" of the Global Ethics Team informing him that he would receive a follow-up email in 2 - 3 business days. Subsequently, on April 2, 2019, Plaintiff received a second email from "Dawn" also of Walmart's Global Ethics group. Dawn's correspondence made it clear to Plaintiff that "the Walmart Global Ethics team had nointention of taking any action" on Plaintiff's behalf as "they simply referred his case back to the offending store, advising that his 'concerns' had been relayed and were 'best reviewed and handled' by the store manager, Christine Facenda," who "not surprisingly" never contacted him. (Compl., ¶s 23-24).
As a consequence of this incident, Plaintiff commenced this suit on July 14, 2020 pursuant to Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1981, et. seq. and under Pennsylvania state common law for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant now moves to dismiss the complaint in its entirety on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action under Section 1981 insofar as religion is not a protected trait under that statute and the complaint fails to aver that Plaintiff was actually prevented from entering into a contract on the basis of his race or ethnicity and because there are no averments that Plaintiff suffered any physical injury as a result of the purportedly intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint, in whole or in part, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Renfro v. Unisys Corp., 671 F.3d 314, 320 (3d Cir. 2011); Rittenhouse Entertainment, Inc. v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 861 F. Supp. 2d470, 478 (M.D. Pa. 2012). In reviewing a challenged pleading, the district courts should view the allegations in the light most favorable to and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Doe v. University of the Sciences, 961 F.3d 203, 210, n.3 (3d Cir. 2020); Ebert v. Prime Care Medical, Inc., No. 14-2020, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1843 at *4 (3d Cir. Feb. 5, 2015); Krantz v. Prudential Investments Fund Management, 305 F.3d 140, 142 (3d Cir. 2002). In so doing, reliance is placed upon the complaint, attached exhibits, and matters of public record. Ebert, supra, (quoting Sands v. McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007)).
Because Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires a showing, rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief, courts evaluating the viability of a complaint must look beyond conclusory statements and determine whether the complaint has alleged enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1974, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929, 949 (2007). Indeed, it is no longer sufficient to allege mere elements of a cause of action; instead a complaint must allege facts "to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Umland v. Planco Financial Services, Inc., 542 F.3d 59, 64 (3d Cir. 2008)(quoting Philips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008)). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiffpleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). Examination of the context of the claim, including the underlying substantive law is therefore necessary in order to properly assess plausibility. Renfro, 671 F.3d at 321(citing In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, 618 F.3d 300, 320, n. 18 (3d Cir. 2010)).
Plaintiff first submits that the treatment which he received at the Warrington Walmart was unlawfully discriminatory in contravention of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981. That statute, entitled "Equal Rights Under the Law" reads:
By its express language then, "Section 1981 prohibits discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts on the basis of race." Singh v. Walmart Stores, Inc., No. 98-CV-1613, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8531, 1999 WL 374184 at *4 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 1999). "Section 1981, like Section 1982, reaches private conduct" and "was 'designed to eradicate blatant deprivations of civil rights' such as where 'a private offeror refused to extend to [an African-American], solely because he is an [African-American] the same opportunity to enter into contracts as he extends to white offerees.'" Comcast Corp. v. National Ass'n. of African American Owned Media, 140 S. Ct. 2009, 2016, 206 L. Ed.2d 356 (2020)(quoting General Building Contractors Ass'n. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 388, 102 S. Ct. 3141, 73 L. Ed.2d 835 (1982)); CBOCS West, Inc. v. Humphries, 553 U.S. 442, 447, 128 S. Ct. 1951, 170 L. Ed.2d 864 (2008)(quoting Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 173, 96 S. Ct. 2586, 49 L. Ed.2d 415 (1976)). Moreover, Section 1981 can be violated only by intentional discrimination, so "[t]o prevail, a plaintiff must initially plead and ultimately prove that, but for race, [he] would not have suffered the loss of a legally protected right." Comcast, 140 S. Ct. at 1019; General Building, 458 U.S. at 391.
It should be noted that "racial discrimination is that which singles out 'identifiable classes of persons solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics.'" Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495, 515, 120 S. Ct. 1044, 1056, 145 L. Ed.2d 1007 (2000)(quoting Saint Francis College v. Al-Khazraji, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial