Mbonisi Sibanda, an African American man, sued Kane Logistics in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri, raising claims of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant Kane Logistics moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
Factual Overview
Sibanda worked at Kane Logistics’ warehouse through a staffing agency from May 2, 2022, until July 2, 2022. He alleged he was wrongfully terminated following an altercation with a coworker who had threatened to kill him after taking a piece of equipment. Sibanda admitted responding to the threat by saying he would shoot the coworker if touched or threatened further. He reported the incident to his supervisor, Frank Addison, who allegedly ignored him. Sibanda also claimed that on the same day, Addison smacked his behind as he entered the office to clock in.
Sibanda then reported the coworker incident (but not Addison’s conduct) to another supervisor named Troy, who told him to wait five minutes and then terminated his contract. Sibanda alleged Troy fired him because he didn’t want Sibanda to speak with Human Resources about the coworker conflict. After his termination, Sibanda filed a charge with the EEOC and received a right to sue letter.
Legal Analysis
Race, Color, and National Origin Discrimination: The court found that merely checking boxes on a pro se complaint form to allege discrimination based on race, color, and national origin was insufficient to state a plausible claim. The court noted that Sibanda’s complaint did not make a single reference to his race, color, or national origin beyond checking the boxes, and he failed to allege any facts suggesting similarly situated employees of another race received different treatment.
Same-Sex Harassment: The court analyzed whether the single incident of Addison smacking Sibanda’s behind constituted sex discrimination. The court explained that same-sex harassment claims require additional proof beyond what is needed in opposite-sex cases. The court found that Sibanda failed to allege facts showing the conduct was motivated by sexual desire, general hostility to males in the workplace, or that females were treated differently.
Retaliation: On the retaliation claim, the court determined that Sibanda failed to engage in statutorily protected conduct. While he complained about his coworker’s conduct, he never alleged that the underlying incident was related to his protected status, which is necessary for a retaliation claim under Title VII.
The court granted Kane Logistics’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed all of Sibanda’s claims.
Schrag on Law 