Plaintiff Samuel Rene Lopez sued defendants COMPA Industries, Inc., several of COMPA’s officers and directors, and Stratify, LLC in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, raising claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The district court dismissed all claims for failure to state a claim, and Lopez appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Factual Overview
Samuel Lopez, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against COMPA Industries, Inc., a business founded by his father, as well as several family members who serve in leadership roles at COMPA and Stratify, LLC, a separate company operated by one of Lopez’s brothers. Lopez alleged that he had worked intermittently for COMPA over the past 20 years until he was wrongfully terminated.
The complaint described a complex family drama involving allegations of favoritism, physical abuse, and questions of paternity. Lopez claimed that his brother had “extorted” him for physical labor and that his mother and brother had ridiculed him for working “like a Mexican” and “a slave.” He also recounted an incident from 2010 when he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital, which his mother allegedly used against him in later employment negotiations.
Lopez’s complaint also alleged a criminal RICO conspiracy, vaguely referring to various “frauds” committed by family members and COMPA employees. He accused his mother of stealing from his storage units and committing extortion, and claimed his brother attempted to sabotage a government certification Lopez had acquired for COMPA.
After reviewing Lopez’s amended complaint, which was the ninth version filed in this litigation, the district court dismissed it sua sponte for failure to state a claim. Lopez then appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Legal Analysis
ADA Claim: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Lopez’s ADA claim. The court found that Lopez failed to allege facts showing he was disabled within the meaning of the ADA or that he suffered an adverse employment action because of a disability. While Lopez mentioned a decade-old hospitalization for mental health reasons, the court noted this was insufficient to establish an ongoing impairment that interfered with major life activities. Additionally, the allegation that his mother called him “crazy” during contract negotiations was deemed inadequate to support an inference of discriminatory termination.
Title VII Claim: The court also affirmed the dismissal of Lopez’s Title VII claim. It found that Lopez failed to plead facts showing that others outside his protected class were treated more favorably, which is necessary to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The court also noted that Lopez’s allegations of derogatory comments by his mother and brother were insufficient to create an inference of discriminatory motive for his termination, characterizing them as “sheer speculation” without supporting details.
RICO Claim: The Tenth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Lopez’s RICO claim as well. While Lopez made numerous references to various crimes in his complaint, the court found that he failed to provide sufficient details or explanations about the nature of these alleged crimes. The court noted that conclusory allegations without supporting factual averments are insufficient to state a claim. Lopez’s allegations of wire fraud, for example, lacked specific details about false representations or intentions to obtain money or property fraudulently. The court also pointed out that many of the activities Lopez described were not predicate RICO offenses under the statute.
The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of all of Lopez’s claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Schrag on Law 