Pittman v. Scholastic Inc.
| Docket Number | 21-cv-04045-NKL |
| Decision Date | 20 December 2021 |
| Parties | EDDIE L. PITTMAN Plaintiff, v. SCHOLASTIC INC., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Pro se Plaintiff Eddie Pittman argues Scholastic Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by discriminating against him creating a hostile work environment, and constructively discharging him because he is Black. Scholastic asks the Court to dismiss this case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) because Mr. Pittman has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. See Doc. 24 (Second Mot. for Judgment on the Pleadings) (the “Motion”). Because Mr. Pittman fails to sufficiently allege that he suffered an adverse employment action, his race discrimination claim fails. Since Mr Pittman also fails to allege severe or pervasive harassment his hostile work environment and constructive discharge claims fail. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Scholastic's Motion, and this case is hereby DISMISSED.
While a motion to dismiss a complaint for failing to “state a claim upon which relief can be granted” made under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) must be brought before an answer is filed, a defendant may raise the defense later under Rule 12(c). See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); Fed. R. Civ. P 12(h)(2)(B); see also Westcott v. City of Omaha, 901 F.2d 1486, 1488 (8th Cir. 1990). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a Rule 12(c) motion usually address different concerns- the former targets the sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint, while the latter moves to the merits of a plaintiff's claims-and each therefore generally implicates a different standard of proof. See 5C Wright & Miller, § 1369 (); 61A Am. Jur. 2d Pleading § 559 (same); see also Murphy v. Dep't of Air Force, 326 F.R.D. 47, 49 (D.D.C. 2018) ( the difference between motions brought pursuant to Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(c)). However, when a defendant raises a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted defense under Rule 12(c), the Court treats the 12(c) motion as if it were brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Westcott, 901 F.2d at 1488 (); St. Paul Ramsey Cty. Med. Ctr. v. Pennington Cty., S.D., 857 F.2d 1185, 1187 (8th Cir. 1988) (treating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) filed after pleadings had closed as a motion under Rule 12(c), while applying the Rule 12(b)(6) standards).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should be granted only if the plaintiff fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim “that is plausible on its face” and would entitle the plaintiff to the relief requested. Corrado v. Life Inv'rs Ins. Co. of Am., 804 F.3d 915, 917 (8th Cir. 2015) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). In analyzing a motion to dismiss, the Court must “accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party . . . but [is] not bound to accept as true [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.” McDonough v. Anoka Cty., 799 F.3d 931, 945 (8th Cir. 2015) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Where the pleading party is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe the pleadings “liberally.” Miles v. Ertl Co., 722 F.2d 434, 434 (8th Cir. 1983) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972)).
When a defendant moves from the sufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations to the merits of the plaintiff's claim, the defendant must show “there is no dispute as to any material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Wishnatsky v. Rovner, 433 F.3d 608, 610 (8th Cir. 2006).
Around August 2019, Mr. Pittman, a Black man, started work as a temporary evening employee at Scholastic in Jefferson City, Missouri. During his first few months, Mr. Pittman had no issues with his supervisors. That said, he had several negative interactions with coworkers Guy and Steven.[1] Roughly a month after starting work, in September 2019, Mr. Pittman asked Paul, his supervisor at the time, to log him onto a scanner, because temporary employees were not provided with their own access. Paul then directed Guy to log onto the device for Mr. Pittman, using Guy's credentials. Guy responded, “I don't know; I don't trust this guy.” Doc. 22 (Amended Compl.), at 4. Mr. Pittman does not allege that he was unable to access the scanner.
Four months later, on January 2, 2020, “Steve[2] and Guy” approached Mr. Pittman as he was working one evening to break down pallets of book materials, and Steve “rudely [said] something to [the] effect [of]: ‘It don't take much sense to set these pallets up properly[.]'” Doc. 22, at 4. Mr. Pittman interpreted this comment to be “getting at [his] way of doing things.” Id. Mr. Pittman alleges that Guy made similar comments, and asked him to “move his situation [sic] over towards them after [he] deliberately positioned himself [away] from them because they basically were rude and not respectful.” Id. According to Mr. Pittman, the request served no work-related purpose. After the move, Guy asked Mr. Pittman about his Super Bowl predictions, and when Mr. Pittman chose the Ravens, Guy said, “we need to send you down there with the others.” Id. Later that day, Guy came to Mr. Pittman's workstation and moved the pallet Mr. Pittman was working on seven feet away from his previous workstation, saying nothing in the process. Id. at 5. Mr. Pittman alleges that Guy's action had no work-related purpose.
In late November or early December, Linda became Mr. Pittman's supervisor. Soon after, Mr. Pittman “recognized little subtle signs of preferential bias from Linda.” Id. at 3. On January 29, 2020, Mr. Pittman alleges that Linda discriminated against him; he claims that Linda asked him to move to stand in front of her as she presented during a “pre-2nd shift meeting.” Id. Prior to the request, Mr. Pittman was standing behind Linda. Shortly after the request, Linda moved to another area. During other meetings, Mr. Pittman alleges that Linda presented with employees standing behind her. Those employees were allegedly white. Mr. Pittman alleges he had stood in the same place for pre-shift meetings since August 2019.
Not long after, on February 6 and February 13, 2020, Mr. Pittman alleges Linda discriminated against him again. He alleges that Linda did not give him an award or recognize him for his extra efforts, such as for staying late, cleaning up, and being very productive. Mr. Pittman alleges that it was known that he was performing “beyond the call of duty efforts” at work. Doc. 22, at 3. While Linda knew that Mr. Pittman had done extra work, she never recognized him at a meeting. To Mr. Pittman's knowledge, everyone Linda recognized was white.
In early March 2020, Mr. Pittman took emergency medical leave for family reasons. Prior to taking leave, Mr. Pittman never told Scholastic about any of the behavior identified in the Complaint. On March 23, 2020, he emailed a complaint-containing most of the facts he now pleads-to Scholastic. Mr. Pittman concluded the email by stating that he is no longer comfortable returning to the Jefferson City Scholastic location, and requested a transfer to another state. Scholastic responded to this complaint to request additional details. After Mr. Pittman provided these additional details, he never heard back from Scholastic regarding his complaints. However, Mr. Pittman did receive an invitation to return to work in September 2020. Mr. Pittman refused the offer, believing that Scholastic had not taken his complaints seriously. However, he did not inquire about the status of his complaints, tell Scholastic that he believed his complaints had gone unresolved, or that his treatment at Scholastic was the reason he refused to return.
Mr. Pittman first filed his Complaint, along with a Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, on March 5, 2021. Doc. 1 (Mot. for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis). The Court granted the Motion, and Mr. Pittman formally filed his Complaint on May 5, 2021. Doc. 2 (Order Granting Application); Doc. 3 (Compl.). Scholastic answered and filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. 15 (Answer); Doc. 16 (Mot. Judgment on the Pleadings). Mr. Pittman sought leave to amend his complaint, which was granted, and filed his Amended Complaint on September 5, 2021. Doc. 18 ( ); Doc. 21 (Order Granting Leave to Amend); Doc. 22 (Amended Compl.). As a result of Mr. Pittman's Amended Complaint, the Court denied Scholastic's first Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as moot. Doc. 27. Scholastic filed an Amended Answer and a second Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Doc. 23 (Amended Answer); Doc. 24 (Second Mot. For Judgment on the Pleadings). The Motion is now ripe.
Construed liberally, Mr. Pittman argues that Scholastic racially discriminated against him, created a hostile work environment, and constructively discharged him, all in violation of Title VII and Section 1981. Claims brought under Title VII and Section 1981 are generally analyzed under the same framework. Lake v....
To continue reading
Request your trial