Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ali v. Qure Medical

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

October 8, 2019

FOUAD ALI, Plaintiff,
QURE MEDICAL, Defendant.



         The plaintiff is representing himself. On July 8, 2019, he filed a complaint suing “Qure Medical.” Dkt. No. 1. On page four of the form complaint, he marked the box for “I am suing for a violation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Id. at 4. In the section of the complaint that asked him to explain who violated his rights, what each person did, when they did it, where they did it and why, the plaintiff listed seven things:

         1. In relation to someone named John Gomez, whom the plaintiff says was a “supervisor, ” the plaintiff says that he went back to work after having surgery. Id. at 2. He says he had a note from his doctor saying that he should be given “light Dude”-the court thinks the plaintiff means “light duty”-with no machines for a few weeks. Id. The plaintiff says that “for some reason he”-the court assumes the plaintiff means John Gomez-“let me work on the machine from the first day I back.” Id.

         2. In relation to someone named “Raymond, ” whom the plaintiff describes as “Lead, ” the plaintiff says that Raymond “let” the plaintiff “work so hard on the machine without pity and no mercy, ” and that Raymond asked the plaintiff for more recycle and parts so that Raymond could get credit and bonus. Id. The plaintiff alleges that because of this, he was back “too many times to the emergency.” Id.

         3. In relation to someone named “Juan” or “Juaa, ” whom the plaintiff describes as an inspector, the plaintiff says that she gave him a hard time all the time; he says that when it was her turn to “check [his] parts” to see if they were good or bad, she would “reject all, ” although she knew that the plaintiff was experienced and knew the difference between the good parts and the bad parts. Id. The plaintiff also says that “Juan” or “Juaa” knew he had applied for her position-the inspector position-“so [he] can't get it.” Id.

         4. Regarding quality supervisor Stephanie Fellion, the plaintiff says that she denied him the inspector position when he applied for it. Id. at 3. He alleges that the same day, Fellion “ran to the other employee”-a “girl” whose name the plaintiff forgot-and asked that other employee to apply for the inspector position, even though the other employee was a temp-to-hire and not a permanent employee. Id.

         5. Regarding supervisor Dan Grauger, the plaintiff says that Grauguer was “harassing [him] like crazy” from the first day Grauger became his supervisor-he alleges that Grauger “let” him work “hard on the machine, ” and kept him moving from machine to machine for no reason, that he asked the plaintiff do “do” more recycle and parts more than usual, despite knowing that the plaintiff had had surgery and had gone to the emergency room many times, and that Grauger told the plaintiff he didn't care if the plaintiff went back to the hospital and that he needed one more note from the doctor. Id. The plaintiff also alleges that when another employee threatened the plaintiff and the plaintiff reported it to Grauger, Grauger said that the plaintiff had the right to call the police, “but don't forget you are A (Muslim).” Id.

         6. As to an inspector named Van, the plaintiff says that Van threatened his life because the plaintiff reported Van to the supervisor for taking parts from the garbage and “he rejected.” Id.

         7. Finally, regarding payroll specialist Yovencka Humphrey and plant manager Kristy Cook, the plaintiff says that he kept reporting to them all the time (presumably reporting the above problems) and that they promised him they'd “stop it, ” but that they provided no help. Id. He says they asked him to be quiet and work safely and be careful, but he ended up calling the police; the plaintiff alleges that because he called the police, Humphrey and Cook suspended him, and later fired him. Id.

         For relief, the plaintiff asks the court to require the defendant to “stop doing immoral and inhuman acts against other people because of (Religion, color, sex) Because we all same and we are all Sons of God.” Id. at 4. He also asks the court to require the defendant to pay him for “all this damage happened to [him], ” including suffering, humiliation, pain, racism and emotional stress. Id.

         The plaintiff attached to the complaint Dismissal and Notice of Rights Form from the EEOC, and a cover letter. Dkt. No. 1-1. The cover letter was from the “investigator who investigated [the plaintiff's] charge of discrimination against . . . Qure Medical.” Id. at 1. The investigator explained,

A dismissal has been issued in your charge because there is insufficient legal evidence to determine that the Respondent's actions violated federal employment discrimination law. Specifically, the evidence gathered does not support your allegation that you were discriminated against on the basis of your religion (Muslim) and disability in that you were subjected to harassment, denied holiday pay, denied promotion and denied accommodate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended. EEOC has reviewed the rebuttal information you provided at the Milwaukee EEOC office and via your March 14, 2019 dated rebuttal letter. Please note, EEOC is in receipt of the text messages you sent to Ms. Humphrey wherein you complain of discrimination. However, the number you sent the messages to appears to be an office/land line which cannot receive text message. During the course of the investigation, EEOC requested additional information from the employer. Unfortunately, however, it did not provide the substantive evidence of discrimination and does not change the investitive results[.]

Id. at 1. The Notice of Rights form is dated May 21, 2019, and informs the plaintiff that he had ninety days from receiving the notice to file suit in federal court. Id. at 2. (The plaintiff filed his complaint within that time period.)

         Before the court had an opportunity to screen the plaintiff's complaint, Qure Medical filed a motion to dismiss it. Dkt. No. 5. The defendant argued that the complaint failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Id. at 3-4. The defendant pointed out that the plaintiff's allegations were vague and general, that many of them had nothing to do with the plaintiff's religion or race and that he made only a couple of allegations that appeared to involve adverse employment actions ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.