Storey v. Burns Intern. Security Services

• Citation: 390 F.3d 760
• Decision Date: 09 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 03-2246.,03-2246.
• Parties: Curtis Blaine STOREY, Appellant v. BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

Page 760

390 F.3d 760

Curtis Blaine STOREY, Appellant v. BURNS INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SERVICES.

No. 03-2246.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued February 9, 2004.

December 9, 2004.

Kirk D. Lyons (argued), Black Mountain, NC, for Appellant.

Fred G. Pressley, Jr., John M. Stephen (argued), Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Columbus, OH, for Appellee.

Before SCIRICA, Chief Judge, and ROTH and McKEE, Circuit Judges.

McKEE, Circuit Judge.

Curtis Blaine Storey, a former employee of Burns International Security Services, filed this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging that Burns discharged him because of his national origin and religion. The "national origin" claim is based on his self-proclaimed identity as a "Confederate Southern-American" and his display of the Confederate battle flag in the workplace. As we explain below, his religion claim arises from the same claimed identity, and the design of the Confederate flag. The district court granted Burns' motion to dismiss based upon that court's conclusion that Storey did not claim to be a member of a class protected under Title VII, and because the record failed to support any claim of religious discrimination. However, we need not address the delicate intricacies of the merits of either claim because we conclude that Storey does not claim to have suffered an "adverse employment action" within the meaning of Title VII. Accordingly, he fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and we will therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of his complaint.¹

I. Background

Until April 30, 2001, Storey was employed as a security guard at the Sony plant located in Newton Station, Pennsylvania. He had worked as a security guard for more than ten years, but only became an employee of Burns in January 2001, when Burns purchased the company that previously employed him. App. 28 (Complaint ¶ 8).

In August 1998, Storey placed a 2 1/2" by 2 1/2" Confederate flag sticker on his lunch box, and put two Confederate flag bumper stickers on his pickup truck. One bumper sticker included the slogan, "The South Was Right," and the other proclaimed, "Heritage not Hate." App. 29 (Complaint ¶ 9).

Later, Jason Schneider and Tim Pratt, two of his supervisors at Burns, told Story that Burns was about to implement a "diversified hiring program," and that Storey would have to remove his Confederate flag stickers. When Storey refused, they explained that Sony and Burns had a "zero tolerance" policy with respect to the display of Confederate symbols. App. 29 (Complaint ¶ 11).

Storey was subsequently ordered to report to Burns headquarters in Pittsburgh, where four unnamed supervisors attempted to convince him to remove or cover his stickers because other employees might be offended by them. Storey responded that, as a Christian, he was offended by things that occurred at work (particularly the use of profanity by other employees), but he accepted it as something he had to deal with. App. 29-30 (Complaint ¶¶ 11-12).

The next day, another Burns employee told Storey that the company had concluded that Storey had voluntarily resigned. Storey stated that he had not resigned and reported to work the following day. However, the guard at the front gate of the plant would not allow Storey to enter the facility, and a captain of the security guards told Storey that he had been terminated because of the Confederate stickers. App. 30 (Complaint ¶ 13).

Storey subsequently filed a discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging that Burns terminated him based on his national origin, "Confederate Southern-American" and religion, Christian. App. 34. After conducting an investigation and finding no basis for relief under Title VII, the EEOC issued a "right to sue" letter, and Storey filed the instant claim in federal district court. App. 35. The district court eventually dismissed Storey's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that "Confederate Southern American" did not qualify as a national origin under Title VII, and that Storey had not established that his display of a Confederate flag was essential to maintaining a sincerely held religious belief. This appeal followed.²

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review of the district court's dismissal of Storey's complaint is plenary. "A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Oatway v. American Intern. Group, Inc, 325 F.3d 184, 187 (3d Cir.2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

II. Discussion

Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin³ or religion.⁴ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). As we noted at the outset, Storey's Title VII claims stem from his self-proclaimed identity as a "Confederate Southern-American."⁵ First, he argues that "Confederate Southern-American" is a valid national origin under Title VII because members of this group share a common culture and history of persecution dating back to the civil war era. App. 29-30 (Complaint ¶¶ 10, 14).⁶ Storey also argues that the Confederate flag is a religious symbol because it incorporates the cross of Saint Andrew, a venerated religious symbol.⁷ He claims that displaying that symbol is similar to displaying a traditional cross or the Star of David. App. 31 (Complaint ¶ 15).⁸ However, before addressing the merits of Storey's two claims, we must first determine if he has alleged an "employment action" under Title VII.⁹

Under the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden shifting test,¹⁰ a Title VII plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53, 101 S.Ct. 1089 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).¹¹ Although the prima facie elements of a discrimination claim vary depending on the particular facts of the case, Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Service, 352 F.3d 789, 797-98 (3d Cir.2003) (per curiam), the plaintiff must generally present evidence that "raises an inference of discrimination." Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 510, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002) (citations omitted). At the pleading stage, however, the plaintiff need only set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief" as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 8(a)(2). Id. at 508, 122 S.Ct. 992.

In order to be entitled to relief, a plaintiff must have suffered a cognizable injury. Thus, only a person "claiming to be aggrieved" may bring an action under Title VII. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.¹² We have defined "an adverse employment action" under Title VII as an action by an employer that is "serious and tangible enough to alter an employee's compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251, 263 (3d Cir.2001) (quoting Robinson v. City of Pittsburgh, 120 F.3d 1286, 1300 (3d Cir.1997)).

That definition stems from the language of Title VII itself. The statute provides: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). An employer's failure to reasonably accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious belief that conflicts with a job requirement can also amount to an adverse employment action unless the employer can demonstrate that such an accommodation would result in "undue hardship." See Shelton v. University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey, 223 F.3d 220, 224 (3d Cir.2000); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j). Storey's complaint fails to meet even these minimal pleading requirements.

Although Storey's complaint speaks of being discharged because of his national origin and religion, Storey concedes that he was fired because he refused to cover or remove his Confederate flag symbols when his employer told him to. App. 29 (Complaint ¶¶ 11-13).¹³ The record reflects that, had Storey complied, he would not have been terminated. Rather, he would have continued working for Burns as a "Confederate, Southern American" and Christian. Therefore, even if we assume arguendo that he is a member of a protected class and if we further accept the claim that the Confederate flag may be viewed as a religious symbol, Storey still has not established a cause of action.

Although Storey attempts to alchemistically spin the discharge into illegal employment discrimination under Title VII, it is clear that he is not alleging that he was discharged because of his claimed national origin or his religion. Moreover, Storey does not argue that the employer was ever aware of the religious symbolism he attaches to the Confederate flag. In fact, before he was terminated, his employer tried to convince him to cover or remove his stickers during work so that he could remain an employee despite his claimed national origin and religion.

Nothing in Storey's complaint suggests that Burns' requirement conflicted with a sincerely held belief that was endemic to his professed national origin or religion claims. By his own account, Storey only "displayed these stickers because he is proud of being a Confederate Southern-American" and "is interested in sharing his passion for his heritage with others," App. 29 (Complaint ¶ 9). He does not claim that anything fundamental to his national origin or religion requires display of confederate symbols. His personal need to share his heritage can not be equated with something...