Plaintiff Emit Ball sued defendant Walmart, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims of employment discrimination, retaliation, hate crimes, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendant Walmart moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Ball began working for Walmart in February 2023 and claims he was forced to resign on April 26, 2023, due to hostile workplace conditions that he alleges were racially motivated. The plaintiff detailed several incidents during his employment that he believed targeted him because of his race.
The first incident occurred on February 21, 2023, when Ball lost his phone at work and alleges a manager named Kennedi deliberately took it and placed it in a lost and found bin to harass and intimidate him. On March 9 and 10, 2023, Ball claimed his manager Michael began treating him in a hostile manner, giving him unfair work assignments. Ball specifically referred to March 10 as “Cleaning Day,” when he was assigned various cleaning tasks without proper tools after arriving late to work.
In April 2023, Ball claims Walmart management offered to change his shift or position him as a driver to avoid interacting with Michael, but Ball viewed these offers as attempts to isolate him and prevent him from complaining about discriminatory conduct. Ball submitted his resignation on April 26, 2023, claiming he was the victim of a hate crime and threatening to sue Walmart.
Ball filed his lawsuit on December 17, 2024, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA), as well as claims under federal and state criminal statutes prohibiting hate crimes and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He sought $25 million in compensatory damages and punitive damages.
Legal Analysis
Title VII and OADA Claims:
The court addressed Walmart’s argument that Ball’s Title VII and OADA claims should be dismissed due to his failure to file a charge of discrimination before filing suit. The court noted that while filing an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional requirement, it is an affirmative defense subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling. However, courts must dismiss Title VII claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies when a plaintiff has not filed a timely EEOC charge.
The court found that Ball’s complaint contained no allegations regarding the filing of an EEOC charge. While in his response to the motion to dismiss, Ball made vague references to “lack of notice and procedural confusion” preventing him from filing a timely charge and mentioned an “administrative dismissal,” these allegations were insufficient to support equitable tolling. The court determined that Ball failed to allege exhaustion of administrative remedies but granted him leave to file an amended complaint clarifying whether he filed an EEOC charge and its timeliness.
Hate Crime Statute Claims:
Regarding Ball’s claims under federal and state hate crime statutes, the court found that neither 18 U.S.C. § 249 nor Oklahoma Statute Title 21, § 850 provides a private cause of action for civil litigants. The court noted that Ball failed to respond to Walmart’s arguments on these claims, suggesting he had abandoned them. The court dismissed these claims without leave to amend.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:
The court analyzed whether Ball adequately alleged extreme and outrageous conduct by Walmart to support an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim. Reviewing Oklahoma law, the court noted this tort requires proof that the defendant’s conduct was “so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency.”
The court found that Ball’s allegations—including incidents where his phone was placed in lost and found, being assigned cleaning tasks he found demeaning, and offers to transfer him to another shift or position—did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous conduct under Oklahoma law. The court cited precedent establishing that allegations of workplace mistreatment by supervisors rarely qualify as extreme and outrageous conduct. Therefore, the court dismissed Ball’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim without leave to amend.
The court granted Walmart’s motion to dismiss, permitted Ball to file an amended complaint reasserting only his Title VII and OADA claims by April 30, 2025, and dismissed his remaining claims without leave to amend.
Schrag on Law 