Davis v. Walsh

United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri · July 24, 2025 · No. 4:25-cv-00113-ACL

Summary

This Memorandum and Order from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri dismisses a pro se plaintiff's amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court conducted an initial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and found that the plaintiff's Title VII claims for race discrimination and retaliation lacked sufficient factual allegations to establish a prima facie case. Specifically, the complaint failed to demonstrate disparate treatment by similarly situated employees or identify protected conduct supporting a retaliation claim. Consequently, the case was dismissed without prejudice.

Court
United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri
Writing for the Court
Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.
Jurisdiction
Eastern District of Missouri
Decision date
July 24, 2025
Docket number
4:25-cv-00113-ACL
Procedural posture
Motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)
Standard of review
de novo review of pleadings
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Disposition
dismissed

Topics

motions to dismisscivil procedure

Practice areas

civil procedureemployment discriminationcivil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff's Title VII race discrimination claim states a claim upon which relief may be granted
  2. Whether Plaintiff's Title VII retaliation claim states a claim upon which relief may be granted

Holdings

  1. The race discrimination claim fails because the complaint does not allege all four elements of a prima facie Title VII claim.
  2. The retaliation claim fails because the complaint does not allege protected conduct or a causal link to the adverse employment action.

Key quotations

A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. (at 722)
To establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation, plaintiff must show that: (1) she engaged in protected conduct; (2) she suffered a materially adverse employment action; and (3) the adverse action was causally linked to the protected conduct. (at 804)

Factual background

Plaintiff Earlesha Davis, a certified nursing assistant, alleged that after a late‑arriving Caucasian employee was assigned, her nurse‑manager reassigned her, she complained, received a verbal warning for insubordination, refused to sign it, was suspended, and was terminated on October 22, 2024. She claimed race discrimination and retaliation but provided no specific protected activity.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a pro se employment discrimination action; the court granted in forma pauperis and ordered an amended complaint; the court reviewed the amended complaint and dismissed the case for failure to state a claim.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…