Jermain Din Washington, Jr. v. Honeycomb Programs Inc., Gregory Reid, and Itai Benzaken

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants the pro se plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis but finds that the complaint does not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction because it asserts only a California FEHA claim. The court declines to serve the complaint and allows plaintiff 30 days to file an amended complaint asserting a federal claim, such as retaliation or harassment under Title VII, and naming only defendants from whom relief is sought. The order also provides pleading guidance and warns that failure to amend may result in a recommendation of dismissal.

Holdings

1. The complaint failed to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction because all parties were alleged to be California citizens and the only pleaded cause of action arose under California's FEHA, not federal law.
2. The complaint could not be served because, as pleaded, it did not establish a basis for federal jurisdiction.
3. Plaintiff was entitled to an opportunity to amend because the jurisdictional defect might be cured by alleging a federal employment-discrimination claim.
4. The allegations could support an amended Title VII retaliation claim because reporting a supervisor's allegedly racist comment to upper management could constitute protected activity if plaintiff reasonably believed the conduct violated Title VII, followed by an adverse employment action and a causal connection.
5. The single alleged racially stereotyped comment, without more, was insufficient to establish the severe or pervasive conduct required for a hostile-work-environment claim, but plaintiff could amend if additional supporting facts existed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint established federal subject matter jurisdiction through federal-question or diversity jurisdiction.
2. Whether the complaint could be served when it pleaded only a California FEHA claim.
3. Whether plaintiff should be granted leave to amend to assert a potentially viable federal employment-discrimination claim.
4. Whether the complaint adequately identified Itai Benzaken as a defendant against whom relief was sought.

Disposition

other