United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Rufe,
J.
Plaintiff
Dominique Jordan filed this suit asserting race
discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and other claims
after Defendant Staffing Plus, Inc. terminated his contract
in the wake of negative news coverage of his arrest.
Defendant has moved to dismiss the discrimination claim for
failure to state a claim and the remaining claims for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Because Plaintiff has not
alleged sufficient facts to show that he was terminated
because of his race, and because the Court declines to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining claims,
Defendant's motion will be granted.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
following facts alleged in the Amended
Complaint[1] are assumed to be true, unless otherwise
stated, for purposes of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
Dominque Jordan worked for Defendant Staffing Plus as an
independent contractor.[2] At some point in time, Plaintiff was
arrested, and although the charges were later dropped,
Defendant terminated Plaintiff soon after the arrest was
reported in local news media without investigating the media
accounts or giving Plaintiff an opportunity to respond.
Plaintiff alleges that he would not have been terminated
under these circumstances if he was “pale skinned or
Caucasi[a]n, ” and that he was terminated because
Defendant wrongly classified him as
“black.”[3]
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
A.
Rule 12(b)(1)
Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to move for
dismissal of any claim over which the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.[4] When considering a 12(b)(1)
motion, the court “review[s] only whether the
allegations on the face of the complaint, taken as true,
allege facts sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the
district court.”[5] When subject matter jurisdiction is
challenged under 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must bear the burden
of persuasion.[6]
B.
Rule 12(b)(6)
Pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal of a
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted is appropriate where a plaintiff's
“plain statement” lacks enough substance to show
that he is entitled to relief.[7] In determining whether a motion
to dismiss should be granted, the court must consider only
those facts alleged in the complaint, accepting the
allegations as true and drawing all logical inferences in
favor of the non-moving party.[8] Courts are not, however, bound to
accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual
allegations.[9] Something more than a mere
possibility of a claim must be alleged; a plaintiff
must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face.”[10] The complaint
must set forth “direct or inferential allegations
respecting all the material elements necessary to sustain
recovery under some viable legal
theory.”[11] In deciding a motion to dismiss, courts
may consider “only allegations in the complaint,
exhibits attached to the complaint, matters of public record,
and documents that form the basis of a
claim.”[12]
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Claim One (Discrimination)
An
independent contractor may bring a cause of action under 28
U.S.C. § 1981 for discrimination occurring within the
scope of the independent contractor
relationship.[13] In order to state a claim for relief
under § 1981 based on race, a plaintiff must allege
facts in support of the following elements (1) that plaintiff
is a member of a racial minority; (2) intent to discriminate
on the basis of race by the defendant; and (3) discrimination
concerning one or more of the activities enumerated in the
statute, which includes the right to make and enforce
contracts . . . .”[14] Thus to succeed in pleading his
wrongful termination claim under § 1981, Plaintiff must
allege sufficient facts to demonstrate that his termination
was the result of intentional racial discrimination by
Defendant.
Here,
Plaintiff has not alleged any specific facts that demonstrate
his contract was terminated because of his perceived race.
The Amended Complaint does not identify any pattern of
racially derogatory statements or discriminatory comments
made by Defendant. Nor has Plaintiff alleged that any
lighter-skinned contractors were treated more favorably by
Defendant than he was after they were arrested or became the
subject of negative media attention. Plaintiff relies solely
on his own bare assertion that “they would not have
done that if I was a pale skinned or
Caucasi[an].”[15] Courts have repeatedly held that such
bare assertions of subjective belief are insufficient to
establish an inference of discrimination.[16] Accordingly,
Defendant's motion to dismiss will be granted with
respect to Plaintiff's discrimination claim under §
1981.
B.
Claims ...