Collins v. Fed. Express Corp.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 21-cv-11143-ADB |
| Parties | MANLEY COLLINS, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
MANLEY COLLINS, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
Civil Action No. 21-cv-11143-ADB
United States District Court, D. Massachusetts
March 31, 2022
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ALLISON D. BURROUGHS U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Manley Collins (“Collins”) brings this pro se action seeking monetary damages for alleged harm arising out of incidents at Boston Logan International Airport (“Logan Airport”) where Collins is employed by the Federal Express Corporation. Named as defendants are (1) Collins' employer, Federal Express Corporation and Federal Express (the “FedEx Defendants” or “FedEx”); (2) 14 co-workers (the “Individual Defendants”);[1] (3) the United States Postal Service, United States Department of Transportation (FAA), and United States Department of Homeland Security (the “Federal Defendants”); and, (4) the Massachusetts Port Authority (“Massport”) (collectively, “Defendants”). [ECF No. 1-1 (“Compl.”)].
Currently before the Court are the Federal Defendants, FedEx Defendants, and Massport's motions to dismiss, [ECF No. 3 (Federal Defendants); ECF No. 25 (FedEx Defendants); ECF No. 46 (Massport)], and Collins' motions of continuance, [ECF Nos. 13, 48]. For the reasons set forth below, Collins' motions of continuance are DENIED, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED, Massport's motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the FedEx Defendants' motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part. Collins' federal law claims against the FedEx Defendants are DISMISSED with prejudice and the remaining state law claims against the FedEx Defendants and the Individual Defendants are remanded to Massachusetts Superior Court (Suffolk County).
I. BACKGROUND
A. Factual Allegations
The following facts are taken from the complaint, [Compl.], the factual allegations of which are assumed to be true when considering a motion to dismiss. See Ruivo v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 766 F.3d 87, 90 (1st Cir. 2014).
Collins, a Black resident of Boston, is employed by Federal Express Corporation as a Material Handler at Logan Airport and is a sub-contractor to the United States Postal Service. [Compl. ¶¶ 1, 22]. He began employment with FedEx's “Air Freight Express Services for the Boston Ramp” on October 20, 2020. [Id. ¶ 9]. His claims in this case arise primarily from alleged incidents of assault during his employment, though he also alleges harm that happened before he was hired. See generally [Compl.].[2]
From his first day of employment with FedEx on October 20, 2020, and continuing through October 29, 2020, Collins was assaulted by several of the Individual Defendants “and defendants who are no longer with FedEx totaling near[ly] 20 or more people.” [Compl. ¶ 10]. Specifically, Collins asserts he was “physically assaulted with angry punches to the upper body, such as on the arms, biceps, elbow, shoulders, back near kidney, chest (pectoral area), stomach, and abdominal area.” [Id.]. Collins also states that, from October 26, 2020 to November 5, 2020, he was sexually assaulted in the same location by a “swipe across both buttocks [by the] arms and hands [of the Individual Defendants] and defendants who are no longer with FedEx totaling near 20 or more people.” [Id. ¶ 11]. Specifically, the individuals “involved” with the physical and sexual assault of Collins in October and November 2020 are: (a) “Brianna - Team Lead, ” (b) “Samson Prosper - Handler/Material Handler, ” (c) “Claire Alexis - Handler/Material Handler, ” (d) “Ahmed Abdillah - Material Handler, ” (e) “Camila Salas - Handler, ” and (f) others who are no longer employed by FedEx, such as “KiKi, ” “Kiki's best work friend, ” and “Claire's work buddy.” [Id. ¶ 13]. The hitting continued after the abovementioned dates, with assaults also being made by “Andrew - Team Lead.” [Id. ¶ 14]. “Throughout peak season, ” Collins was also subjected to “random touching by people.” [Id. ¶ 15].
In January 2021, after Collins advised his manager, Garrett Sexton (“Sexton”), and the warehouse deck team lead, “Ronnie, ” that he had received his first vaccination shot against
Covid-19, Collins was then further assaulted by (a) Ahmed Abdillah, (b) “Frederick Yancy - Handler, ” and (c) “Ernesto - Team Lead now Ramp Agent.” [Compl. ¶ 16]. Although the “hitting stopped with certain individuals, ” further assaults were propagated by: (a) “Dhakari Thomas - Handler, ” (b) “Maria - Handler, ” (c) “Rafeal - Handler, ” (d) “Alex Angurita - Team Lead, ” (e) “Christian - Handler, ” and (f) “Don Nash - Load Captain now Ramp Agent.” [Id. ¶ 17].
Collins responded to the assaults by “withdrawing from them, walking away, avoiding them, placing . . . FedEx package[s] between [himself and the Individual Defendants], tapping the [Individual Defendants] in the same area where the hit[ting] occurred, yelling at them, telling them it arises [his] Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and blocking or attempting to grab the [Individual Defendants'] hands before” they touched him. [Compl. ¶ 19].
On April 13, 2021, Collins filed “a Federal Express Corporate Workplace Violence report” with assistance from Sexton and “Fred, ” another FedEx manager. [Compl. ¶ 21]. Sexton “took the initial written statement and sent it to FedEx Corporate Human Resources.” [Id.]. That same day, Collins also filed a Boston Police Report and, two days later, a “report” with the Massachusetts State Police. [Id. ¶¶ 20, 23] On April 20, 2021, Collins met with a FedEx attorney and security officers and the meeting was recorded. [Id. ¶ 24].
Also on April 13, 2021, Collins filed an U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) report against FedEx alleging that he was discriminated against in the workplace on the basis of his “color, ethnicity, age, sex, and race.” [Compl. ¶ 22]. Collins asserts that individuals at FedEx “tried to intimidate [him] since he was male and should be able to take whatever the [Individuals Defendants] dish out without telling, ” and states that Defendants assumed, based on stereotype, that as a “black male[, he] should be fighting back” or
that he is “act[ing] out of character based on [his] history of domestic violence, PTSD, and sexual violence.” [Id.]. Collins then filed an “Inquiry report” with the EEOC on April 24, 2021 and subsequently spoke with Edward Ostolski, Anthony Pino, and Marc Hawley, presumably from the EEOC, “regarding discrimination” and “continued retaliation by defendants.” [Id. ¶ 25].
Collins seeks the following relief: (1) monetary damages in the amount of $10, 000, 000.02 from each Defendant; (2) “an indefinite international work visa for the country of France commencing on, or after October 1, 2030”; (3) the “termination of [the Individual Defendants] with the option to return to Federal Express after second appeal to Federal Express Corporate Human Resources”; and (4) declaratory relief concerning his ability “to file a work harassment restraining order.” [Compl. at 7 (request for damages)].
B. Procedural History
On May 4, 2021, Collins filed a pro se complaint in Suffolk County Superior Court against Defendants. [Compl.]. Collins brings this action against “Federal Express and its employees as Defendants along with other Defendants as conspirators” for violation of the following laws: 18 U.S.C. § 117 (domestic assault by a habitual offender); 18 U.S.C. § 241 (conspiracy against rights); Massachusetts General Laws ch. 265, § 13A (assault or assault and battery; punishment); Massachusetts General Laws ch. 209A (abuse prevention); Massachusetts General Laws ch. 151B (unlawful discrimination because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry or sex). [Id. ¶ 27]. Attached to the complaint are the following exhibits: (A) a completed employee statement form; (B) Boston Police Department incident report; and (C) an EEOC (inquiry) form. [Id. at 9-19].
On July 12, 2021, the Federal Defendants filed a notice removing the case to this court, [ECF No. 1], as well as a motion to dismiss and a supporting memorandum, [ECF Nos. 3, 4].[3]On September 7, 2021, the FedEx Defendants filed their motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum, [ECF Nos. 25, 26], and on December 17, 2021, Massport filed its motion to dismiss and supporting memorandum, [ECF Nos. 46, 47]. Collins has opposed each of the motions to dismiss. [ECF Nos. 13, 14 (Federal Defendants); ECF Nos. 27, 28 (FedEx Defendants); ECF No. 49 (Massport)].
II. MOTIONS OF CONTINUANCE
On July 19, 2021, Collins filed a motion of continuance and a supporting memorandum. [ECF Nos. 13, 14]. This first motion of continuance opposes the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss and seeks a continuance while Collins “is providing proof of jurisdiction.” [ECF No. 13].
On December 22, 2021, Collins filed a second motion of continuance, which, inter alia, states that he is “submitting amendment to the original complaint, memorandum of law, and motion for continuance.” [ECF No. 48].
To the extent that Collins seeks a continuance of these proceedings in these or other filings, any request for a continuance is DENIED. To the extent he raises arguments in opposition to the motions to dismiss in his motions of continuance, they are considered below.
III. MOTIONS TO DISMISS
A. Legal Standards
1. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
In evaluating a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court must determine whether the facts as alleged in the complaint, “taken at face value, ” support subject matter jurisdiction. Gordo-González v. United States, 873 F.3d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 2017). “When considering a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1) . . ., the Court should apply a standard of review ‘similar to that accorded to a dismissal for failure to state a claim' under subsection 12(b)(6).” Rodriguez v. Mass. Parole Bd., No. 16-cv-11113, 2017 WL 706597, at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2017) (quoting Menge v....
To continue reading
Request your trial