United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
DECISION AND ORDER
William C. Griesbach, District Judge
Mehdi Ahmadian commenced this action against Defendant CR
Meyer and Sons Inc. after he was terminated from his
employment. He alleges that he was subjected to
discriminatory treatment by a person in a supervisory
capacity at Defendant based on his nationality in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal
Pay Act. Presently before the court is Defendant's motion
to dismiss. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and
the time to do so has passed. This alone constitutes
sufficient cause for the court to grant the motion. Civil L.
R. 7(d). For the following additional reasons,
Defendant's motion will be granted.
12(b)(6) motion tests the sufficiency of the complaint to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Gibson v.
City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir. 1990);
see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When reviewing a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept
all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all
reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. Gutierrez v. Peters, 111 F.3d
1364, 1368-69 (7th Cir. 1997); Mosley v. Klincari,
947 F.2d 1338, 1339 (7th Cir. 1991). Rule 8 mandates that a
complaint need only include “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The plaintiff's
short and plain statement must “give the defendant fair
notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007). While a plaintiff is not required to plead
detailed factual allegations, he must plead “more than
labels and conclusions.” Id. A simple,
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do. Id. A claim is plausible on its face
when “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant
is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009).
CONTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT
came to this country in 2001 as a refugee from Iran. He began
working for Defendant at its Oshkosh, Wisconsin facilities in
2001 as a general laborer. During his employment, Plaintiff
was the only employee who was not born in the United States.
Plaintiff alleges that almost immediately after beginning his
employment with Defendant, his coworkers and supervisors made
fun of his name, and he was called “meat.” Compl.
¶ 4, Dkt. No. 1. One coworker remarked, “I
don't speak monkey, ” referring to Plaintiff's
accent. Id. Plaintiff claims that the harassment of
this nature continued during the entire tenure of his
employment. Plaintiff filed numerous grievances concerning
the hostile treatment based on his nationality, but Defendant
took no action to remedy the situation.
taking additional training on Auto Cad, Plaintiff was never
promoted. Instead, he was assigned to perform all the
painting for the company, at which he excelled. Plaintiff
alleges that, in March 2017, Plaintiff's supervisor
assigned him a list of menial activities in the hope that
Plaintiff would fail and could be terminated because of his
performance. Plaintiff completed the list of tasks in a
timely manner, and his supervisor subsequently assigned him
to the position of sandblaster, a job he had never done
before. Plaintiff alleges this job was typically assigned to
two people for safety reasons.
claims he was discriminated in promotion and pay and that
many other employees of other races were given promotions and
increases in pay. The only increase in pay that Plaintiff
received was the annual increases that all employees
received. On June 21, 2017, Defendant conducted a lay-off in
which only Plaintiff was laid off. Plaintiff alleges the
lay-off occurred during the busiest time of the year for the
company. Plaintiff incurred severe financial difficulty and
suffered serious emotional trauma as a result of the
Equal Pay Act Claim
Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from discriminating
against “employees on the basis of sex . . . for equal
work on jobs the performance of which require equal skill,
effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under
similar working conditions.” 29 U.S.C. §
206(d)(1). In this case, Plaintiff alleges that he was
subject to discriminatory treatment based on his nationality,
not his sex. Because Plaintiff has not alleged that the
differences in wages are based upon sex, he has not stated a
claim under the Equal Pay Act. This claim will therefore be
Title VII Claim
Failure to exhaust
asserts Plaintiff's Title VII claim must be dismissed
because he failed to plead a condition precedent. Under Rule
9 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff is
required to plead that “all conditions precedent have
been performed or have occurred.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(c).
Before filing a Title VII claim, a party must meet a number
of prerequisites. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.
“A Plaintiff must file a charge with the EEOC detailing
the alleged discriminatory conduct within the time allowed by
statute, and the EEOC must issue a right-to-sue
letter.” Conner v. Ill. Dep't of Nat'l
Res., 413 F.3d 675, 680 (7th Cir. 2005). These are not
jurisdictional prerequisites, but they are “conditions
precedent” with which the plaintiff must comply.
Plaintiff's complaint does not assert that he filed a
timely EEOC action or that he received a right to sue letter.