In Ayers v. Infinity Dental Management LLC, 2023 WL 7386676 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 8, 2023), the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination asserted under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
From the decision:
Because Ayers asserts that he was terminated from his employment, he has satisfied the adverse employment action element of a Title VII claim. However, Ayers does not allege facts to indicate that he is a member of a protected class5 and was qualified for the position in question. He also fails to allege he was fired under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination since he fails to specify when the incidents he describes occurred in relation to his termination, provide any context for why he was terminated, or make clear if the allegations concerning Patel’s comments about the credit card, his food, and his suggestion about an MLK Campaign were related to his firing. In other words, the brief allegations in the Complaint fail to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence that Ayers’s membership in a protected class was a motivating or determinative factor in his termination. In the absence of such facts, he has not plausibly alleged claims for employment discrimination arising from his termination. See, e.g., Favors v. Sec’y United States Dep’t of Veterans Affs., 695 F. App’x 42, 44 (3d Cir. 2017) (per curiam) (affirming dismissal of Title VII race discrimination claim where plaintiff “included no allegations whatsoever linking his termination to his race”). Accordingly, his wrongful termination claim cannot proceed.
However, the court granted plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint and to cure the defects identified by the court.
The court likewise dismissed plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, likewise because plaintiff failed to allege that he is a member of a protected class.