Young v. Colo. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-cv-00145-NYW-KLM |
| Parties | JOSHUA F. YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEAN WILLIAMS, and JILL HUNSAKER RYAN, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Colorado |
JOSHUA F. YOUNG, Plaintiff,
v.
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DEAN WILLIAMS, and JILL HUNSAKER RYAN, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 22-cv-00145-NYW-KLM
United States District Court, D. Colorado
February 1, 2023
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Nina Y. Wang United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion” or “Motion to Dismiss”) [Doc. 18, filed May 6, 2022]. The Court has reviewed the Motion, the related briefing, and the applicable case law, and concludes that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of this matter. For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion to Dismiss is respectfully GRANTED.[1]
BACKGROUND
The Court takes the following facts from the First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the “Amended Complaint”) [Doc. 15] and construes them as true for the purposes of this Order.[2] Plaintiff Joshua F. Young (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Young”) previously worked
for the Colorado Department of Corrections (the “CDOC”). [Doc. 15 at 1]. He alleges that the CDOC “implemented mandatory trainings that made sweeping negative generalizations regarding individuals who are white, and other gross generalizations about members of other racial demographics.” [Id. at ¶ 4]. According to Plaintiff, the CDOC's training materials were “provided by the State of Colorado by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment” (“CDPHE”). [Id. at 2].
Mr. Young does not describe or explain the nature of the mandatory training, but alleges that the training materials “were based upon a glossary of terms stating that all whites are racist, that white individuals created the concept of race in order to justify the oppression of people of color, and that ‘whiteness' and ‘white supremacy' affect all ‘people of color within a U.S. context.'” [Id. at ¶ 22]. Mr. Young highlights the following glossary definitions:
“BIPOC”: “Acronym for Black, Indigenous People, and People of Color; the term is used to acknowledge that Indigenous and Black people have been most impacted by whiteness, both historically and in the present day. This shapes the experiences of and relationship to white supremacy for all people of color within a U.S. context.”
“White Fragility”: “Discomfort and defensiveness, often triggered by feelings of fear or guilt on the part of a white person when confronted by information about racial inequality and injustice.”
“Race”: “A social construct that artificially groups people by skin tone and other physical traits. The concept, which has no genetic or scientific basis, was created and used to justify social and economic oppression of people of color by white people.”
“White Exceptionalism”: “The belief held by some white allies that they are the exception to white racism even though they fail to address the implicit ways in which they perpetuate white supremacy. These individuals are often more interested in not seeming racist than actually improving the lives of people of color. This is sometimes referred to as fakequity.”
[Id. at ¶ 24 (citations and emphasis omitted)]. Mr. Young further alleges that “Defendants' state-sanctioned training . . . implies a direct relationship between ‘whiteness' and ‘white supremacy,' which it contends presently affects all people of color in the United States.” [Id. at ¶ 25].
The training included a document titled “Other Tools & Resources.” [Id. at ¶ 29]; see also [Doc. 15-2].[3] Mr. Young alleges that he “felt pressure to review these [additional] materials and indeed did review many of them,” and “also felt that because the mandatory trainings insufficiently explained why, for instance, his skin color caused him to be a racist or oppressor, . . . the additional materials might offer additional relevant information.” [Id.].[4] One of the additional resources
linked in the document was a video titled Redlined, a Legacy of Housing Discrimination. [Id. at ¶ 31; Doc. 15-2 at 1]. Plaintiff alleges that the video “accuses all white individuals of misunderstanding that whatever success they had was a result of their own merit, as opposed to the simple product of past forms of race discrimination” and “describes white individuals as having a misplaced sense of success.” [Doc. 15 at ¶¶ 32-33]. The “Other Tools & Resources” page also included a list of “Books about Race and Marginalized Identities,” which listed, inter alia, White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo (“White Fragility”) and How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi. [Id. at ¶¶ 35-36; Doc. 15-2 at 1]. Mr. Young asserts that these books “contain outright support for forms of invidious race discrimination masquerading as ‘anti-racist' literature.” [Doc. 15 at ¶ 35]. Mr. Young states that “[t]hese are just a few of the multitude of examples of the racially discriminatory and abusive teachings that Mr. Young and all employees at the Colorado Department of Corrections have been subjected to.” [Id. at ¶ 45].
Mr. Young alleges that the CDOC's “trainings created a culture of suspicion and distrust in the [CDOC].” [Id. at ¶ 46]. He states that his “own experiences [were] severe and pervasive” and further alleges that “his knowledge that his colleagues were being instructed in the same manner with the same trainings exacerbated the hostile [work] environment.” [Id.]. Additionally, he alleges that he felt “harassed and intimidated to the point that he no longer felt comfortable working for the [CDOC]” and he resigned from his employment with the CDOC on an unspecified date. [Id. at ¶ 55].
Mr. Young initiated this civil action on January 19, 2022 against the CDOC; Dean Williams, the Executive Director of the CDOC; and Jill Hunsaker Ryan, the Executive Director of
the CDPHE. See [Doc. 1].[5] On April 29, 2022, he filed his Amended Complaint. [Doc. 15]. He raises two claims for relief: (1) a hostile work environment claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against the CDOC; and (2) a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Executive Directors Williams and Hunsaker Ryan. [Id. at 15-17].
On May 6, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 18]. Therein, they argue that both of Plaintiff's claims fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Id. at 4]. Mr. Young has since responded to the Motion, see [Doc. 27], and Defendants have replied. [Doc. 29]. The Motion is thus ripe for disposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). In deciding a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court must “accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations . . . and view these allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Casanova v. Ulibarri, 595 F.3d 1120, 1124 (10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Smith v. United States, 561 F.3d 1090, 1098 (10th Cir. 2009)). Nevertheless, a plaintiff may not rely on mere labels or conclusions, “and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Rather, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); see also Robbins v. Oklahoma, 519 F.3d 1242, 1247 (10th Cir. 2008) (explaining that plausibility refers “to the scope of the allegations in a complaint,” and that the allegations must be sufficient to nudge a plaintiff's claim(s) “across the line from conceivable to plausible”). The ultimate duty of the Court is to
“determine whether the complaint sufficiently alleges facts supporting all the elements necessary to establish an entitlement to relief under the legal theory proposed.” Forest Guardians v. Forsgren, 478 F.3d 1149, 1160 (10th Cir. 2007).
ANALYSIS
I. Hostile Work Environment
Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer 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). Title VII is violated when a workplace is “permeated with ‘discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,' that is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment.'” Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21 (1993) (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 67 (1986)). A prima facie hostile work environment claim contains the following elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected group; (2) the plaintiff was subject to unwelcome harassment; (3) the harassment was based on the plaintiff's race; and (4) “the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment altered a term, condition, or privilege of the plaintiff's employment and created an abusive working environment.” Lounds v. Lincare, Inc., 812 F.3d 1208, 1222 (10th Cir. 2015).[6]
Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to allege facts satisfying the first, second, and fourth elements of a prima facie Title VII claim. [Doc. 18 at 5]. The Court addresses these arguments in turn.
A. Membership in a Protected Group
First, Defendants argue that because Plaintiff, as a white man, is a member of a historically advantaged group, he must “establish background circumstances that support an inference that CDOC is one of those unusual employers who discriminates against the majority.” [Id. at 5 (quotation omitted)]. Defendants maintain that “Plaintiff makes no such historical allegations regarding [the] CDOC,” and for this reason, he has failed to adequately allege membership in a protected class. [Id.].
In response, Mr. Young argues...
To continue reading
Request your trial