Oxford v. The Linc Group Inc.

• Decision Date: 30 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. 5:10-CV-27-D.,5:10-CV-27-D.
• Citation: 724 F.Supp.2d 570
• Parties: Mark M. OXFORD, Plaintiff, v. The LINC GROUP, INC., Operational and Support Services, Reep Inc., and Linc Government Services, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina

724 F.Supp.2d 570

Mark M. OXFORD, Plaintiff,

v.The LINC GROUP, INC., Operational and Support Services, Reep Inc., and Linc Government Services, Defendants.

No. 5:10-CV-27-D.

United States District Court,E.D. North Carolina,

Western Division.

June 30, 2010.

Mark M. Oxford, Lansing, MI, pro se.

Amy Jenkins, McAngus Goudelock & Courie, LLC, Charleston, SC, Jesse J. Maddox, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore LLP, Fresno, CA, Webster Glenn Harrison, McAngus, Goudelock & Courie, LLC, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

JAMES C. DEVER III, District Judge.

On October 27, 2009, Mark M. Oxford (“plaintiff” or “Oxford”), proceeding pro se, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against The Line Group, LLC (“Line”), REEP, Inc., d/b/a Operational Support and Services (“OSS”), and REEP, Inc., d/b/a Line Government Services (“LGS”) (collectively “defendants”). Oxford alleges that defendants violated the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (“EPA”), 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, California Government Code Section 12940, and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. See Cmpl. ¶¶ 13-38. On January 19, 2010, the United States District Court for the Central District of California transferred the case to this court and denied as moot defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 18]. On February 1, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted all of Oxford's claims except for his Title VII claim against LGS and OSS [D.E. 27]. On March 15, 2010, Oxford moved for summary judgment [D.E. 32]. As explained below, defendants' motion to dismiss is granted and Oxford's motion for summary judgment is denied.

I.

From June 2008 through May 2009, OSS employed Oxford as a bilingual bicultural advisor. See Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10. Oxford is a Michigan resident. Id. ¶ 1. Oxford is of Egyptian origin and practices the Islamic faith. Id. ¶ 9. REEP is a New Hampshire corporation with its principal place of business in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Votipka Decl. ¶ 8. Line is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irvine, California. Id. ¶ 7. During his employment with OSS, Oxford worked in Iraq and was paid an annual salary of $160,000. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 10, 14.

Oxford asserts five claims arising from his employment in Iraq. First, Oxford argues that defendants violated the EPA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), because the yearly salary that OSS paid Oxford, a male employee, was allegedly $5,000 less than OSS paid three female employees to perform essentially the same job as Oxford. Compl. ¶ 14.

Next, Oxford alleges that defendants violated Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, because Oxford's supervisors temporarily transferred him to a “less desirable” post that was “a lot less convenient” and had “significantly less access to vehicles and requir[ed] [a] considerable amount of time” in the “heat of [the] outdoors of Iraq.” Compl. ¶ 20; see id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 27. Oxford also alleges that OSS has no “anti-discrimination ... posters in obvious and accessible places” or “known discrimination or harassment policies.” Id. ¶ 21. Oxford notified his OSS supervisor, Bruce Blaisdell, about these issues, but OSS “ignored [Oxford's] remarks and didn't work on correcting its [alleged] violations.” Id. OSS also allegedly denied Oxford a raise and denied him security clearance, but granted a raise and security clearance to other bilingual bicultural advisors who were not of Oxford's race, sex, national origin, or religion. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Furthermore, Oxford claims that his supervisors harassed him by “accusing [him] in front of everybody in the office” of being “a liar,” and by making “derogatory remarks” about his race, religion, and national origin. Id. ¶ 25. ¹ When Oxford reported one such remark to Blaisdell, Blaisdell allegedly responded that the remark was “bad humor at best.” Id. Oxford reported the other remarks to another supervisor, who responded that Oxford should “get a thicker skin.” Id. Oxford describes such statements as “extreme mental and emotional torture,” and claims he had to resign as a result. Id.

In his third, fourth, and fifth claims, Oxford alleges that the foregoing conduct also violated California Government Code Section 12940, Compl. ¶¶ 29-32, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, id. ¶ 33-35, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. ¶¶ 36-38.

On October 27, 2009, Oxford sued defendants in the United States District Court for the Central District of California [D.E. 1]. On November 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [D.E. 5]. On January 19, 2010, the United States District Court for the Central District of California transferred the case to this court and denied as moot defendants' motion to dismiss [D.E. 18]. On February 1, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim all of Oxford's claims except for Oxford's Title VII claim against OSS and LGS [D.E. 27]. Oxford responded in opposition [D.E. 30], and defendants replied [D.E. 31]. On March 15, 2010, Oxford moved for summary judgment [D.E. 32]. Defendants responded in opposition [D.E. 37], and Oxford replied [D.E. 39].

II

A.

In analyzing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,” a court must determine whether the complaint is legally and factually sufficient. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ---U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 302 (4th Cir.2008); Goodman v. Praxair, Inc., 494 F.3d 458, 464 (4th Cir.2007) (en banc); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 167 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2007) (per curiam). A court need not accept a complaint's legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement. See, e.g., Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50; Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir.2009). Similarly, a court need not accept as true “unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Giarratano, 521 F.3d at 302 (quotation omitted); see Ashcroft, 129 S.Ct. at 1949-50. Furthermore, in analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court may consider “documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice.” Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322, 127 S.Ct. 2499, 168 L.Ed.2d 179 (2007).

The court construes allegations in a pro se complaint liberally. See, e.g., Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94, 127 S.Ct. 2197. In interpreting a pro se complaint, the court's task is not to discern the plaintiff's unexpressed intent, but what the words in the complaint mean. See Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 413 n. 3 (4th Cir.2006) (en banc) (holding that a “liberal interpretation” of a complaint does not warrant a “complete rewriting”); Brock v. Carroll, 107 F.3d 241, 243 n. 3 (4th Cir.1997).

First, Oxford alleges that defendants violated the EPA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d), because the yearly salary that OSS paid Oxford, a male employee, was $5,000 less than OSS paid three female employees to perform essentially the same job. Compl. ¶ 14. The EPA, however, does not apply “with respect to any employee whose services during the workweek are performed in a workplace within a foreign country.” 29 U.S.C. § 213(f); see, e.g., Bryant v. Int'l Sch. Servs., Inc., 675 F.2d 562, 572 n. 17 (3d Cir.1982). Oxford alleges that he worked for OSS “for the period of 06/20/2008 to 05/18/2009, during which period [he] was deployed to Iraq.” Compl. ¶ 10. Accordingly, because the EPA does not apply to Oxford's work performed in Iraq, Oxford's EPA claim fails.

Next, Oxford alleges that defendants violated Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Compl. ¶¶ 18-28. As mentioned, Oxford alleges that, while he was working in Iraq, his supervisors temporarily transferred him to a less desirable post. Compl. ¶ 20; see id. ¶¶ 19, 21, 27. Oxford also alleges that OSS has no anti-discrimination posters in noticeable places and lacks known discrimination and harassment policies. Id. ¶ 21. Oxford alleges that he brought such issues to the attention of his OSS supervisor, and that OSS ignored his remarks and took no corrective action. Id. OSS also allegedly denied Oxford a raise and a security clearance, but granted a raise and security clearance to other bilingual bicultural advisors who were not of Oxford's race, sex, national origin, or religion. Id. ¶¶ 23-24. Furthermore, Oxford's supervisors allegedly harassed him by calling him a liar and by making derogatory remarks about his race, religion, and national origin. Id. ¶ 25. Oxford reported such remarks to OSS supervisors but OSS allegedly took no corrective action. Id.

As for Oxford's section 1981 claim, section 1981 protects the rights only of “persons within the jurisdiction of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a): see Aleman v. Chugach Support Servs., Inc., 485 F.3d 206, 211 (4th Cir.2007). Accordingly, because the race discrimination allegedly occurred in Iraq, Oxford's section 1981 claim fails. See, e.g., Ofori-Tenkorang v. Am. Int'l Group, Inc., 460 F.3d 296, 297-98, 303-05 (2d Cir.2006).

As for Title VII, Title VII permits a cause of action for certain employment discrimination against any entity defined as an “employer.” Aleman, 485 F.3d at 210; see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Specifically, Title VII provides, in relevant part, that “[i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to...