Flagg v. State of New Jersey Office of Child Support Services, 112719 FED3, 18-3193
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM|
|Party Name:||HOSEA L. FLAGG, Appellant v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES|
|Judge Panel:||Before: MCKEE, COWEN and ROTH, Circuit Judges|
|Case Date:||November 27, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit|
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) February 21, 2019
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.N.J. Civil Action No. 3-17-cv-02602) District Judge: Honorable Peter G. Sheridan
Before: MCKEE, COWEN and ROTH, Circuit Judges
Hosea Flagg, proceeding pro se, appeals an order of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissing his employment discrimination action. For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Flagg filed a complaint against the State of New Jersey, Office of Child Support Services ("OCSS") claiming employment discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17. OCSS moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief and asserted that Flagg had failed to comply with basic rules of pleading.
The District Court granted the motion and allowed Flagg to amend his complaint. OCSS moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Flagg then filed a second amended complaint purporting to add four individual defendants. Flagg claimed, among other things, that he was wrongfully terminated based on his age and after he had complained about remarks about sexual orientation. The District Court allowed OCSS to withdraw its pending motion and file a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.
The District Court granted OCSS's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with leave to amend Count I, the wrongful termination claim. The District Court stated that Flagg had agreed at oral argument to dismiss all other counts and explained that Flagg had not sufficiently alleged the elements of a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 ("ADEA"). The District Court stated that it would not review the merits of a claim based on sexual orientation because it found no statements in Count I that...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP