Labor & Employment Law

Individual rather than the court responsible for identifying the ?cause of action?

Individual rather than the court responsible for identifying the ?cause of action?

Zimmer v Secretary of Department of Homeland Security, USCA, 3^rd Circuit, Docket #08-1590, October 22, 2008 [not precedential]

Lawrence Zimmer appealed an order by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, that dismissed his employment discrimination complaint "for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)." The Circuit Court affirmed the District Court?s order.

Zimmer filed a complaint on October 9, 2007 against Secretary Michael Chertoff, alleging that he was discriminated against on the basis of race, age and reprisal when he was terminated from the position of Transportation Security Screener.

Ultimately the complaint filed by Zimmer consisted of his statement that he had been abruptly terminated from his position of Security Screener without prior warning ? that he had been retaliated against for claiming discrimination in writing and verbally to the Agency ? that he had a black supervisor who had acknowledged that Zimmer felt he was being discriminated against because he was white, and stated that ?the three supervisors bringing disciplinary actions against plaintiff are Black.? Zimmer also cited some ?letters from the Black supervisors? that he alleges contained ?defamation, retaliation and lies? against him. Zimmer attached over 450 pages of documents from administrative proceedings to his amended complaint and urged the District Court Judge to review them.

District Court found that the amended complaint did not sufficiently include the factual basis of his claims and dismissed his complaint.

The Court of Appeals said that in considering whether a district court properly dismissed a complaint, we are required to ?accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.?

The Circuit court said that ?Although Zimmer?s complaint states that he is white, that one or more of his supervisors was black, and that he ?abruptly terminated,? the complaint does not contain factual matter that would plausibly suggest that he was terminated on the basis of his race1 or as retaliation for protected activity.? Further, said the court, ?We do not fault the District Court for failing to wade through the over 450 pages of attachments to attempt to discern Zimmer?s claims."

The full text of the decision is posted on the Internet at:

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/081590np.pdf

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on October 31, 2008 (boomark / email).