In a case pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, plaintiff Joseph Goforth brought an employment discrimination action against Bi-State Development Agency and others. Bi-State Development and the other defendants moved to dismiss.
Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations
Goforth, an African American, was employed by Bi-State from July 2015 and held various positions, ultimately becoming a Transit Security Specialist Team Leader. His performance was reportedly good, with no negative evaluations. The core of Goforth’s allegations centers on discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory treatment during his tenure, particularly under the supervision of Mr. Kevin Scott, who became his boss in 2019.
Goforth’s complaints included systemic racism within Bi-State, harsher and more extreme punishments for black officers compared to their white counterparts, and differential treatment in terms of office amenities and privileges. He also reported on sexual harassment and racial comments towards a fellow employee, TSS Sadie Tull, by another employee, Richard Tate. Despite reporting these incidents and cooperating with Bi-State’s EEO Investigator, Amie Weber, Goforth alleged that he was unfairly terminated in May 2021. His termination, he claimed, was in retaliation for his complaints and participation in the EEO investigation, as the reasons cited for his dismissal (engagement in sexually explicit behavior and failure to supervise subordinates) were false.
Court’s Analysis of Legal Issues
Individual Claims Against Defendant Scott: The court dismissed counts one, two, and three against Kevin Scott, as Title VII does not allow for individual liability against a supervisor or employee. Goforth conceded that there was no liability against Scott under Title VII.
Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies: The court dismissed counts two (race discrimination) and three (hostile work environment) for failing to exhaust administrative remedies. This decision was because Goforth’s EEOC charge listed retaliation but not race discrimination or a hostile work environment as the basis for discrimination.
Retaliation Claim Against Defendant Bi-State: The court did not dismiss the retaliation claim against Bi-State Development Agency. Goforth sufficiently alleged that Bi-State retaliated against him for cooperating with the EEO investigation and making a verbal complaint against Scott. The court found the factual allegations in his complaint plausibly established a causal connection between his participation in the EEO investigation and his termination.
Section 1983 Claim: The court dismissed count four, the § 1983 claim, as Goforth did not set forth specific allegations establishing that Defendants’ wrongful conduct caused a constitutional deprivation. His claim under § 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was not supported by the allegations in his petition.
Motion for a More Definite Statement: The court denied the Defendants’ motions for a more definite statement, determining that the petition did not include a material ambiguity or omission that made it unanswerable.
Schrag on Law 