UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ADAM MCCLAIN, ) Case No.: 1:22 CV 2192 ) Plaintiff, ) ) JUDGE SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. v. ) ) MORRISON PRODUCTS, ) MEMORANDUM OF OPINION ) AND ORDER Defendant. )

Pro se Plaintiff Adam McClain filed this Title VII action against his former employer, Morrison Products. Plaintiff alleges Morrison did not follow its own policy regarding employee medical leave. He further alleges that the plant manager discriminated against him by not accepting his grievance when he accepted grievances from others dismissed at the same time. He asks this Court to order the Defendant to rehire him and pay his lost wages. Plaintiff also filed an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. No. 2). That Application is granted. Background Plaintiff’s Complaint is very brief. He states he was off work on medical leave from September 7, 2021 through September 16, 2021. He indicates that the employee handbook states that an employee is permitted to miss up to thirty days of work on medical leave with a doctor’s note. He states that a human resources employee called him on September 13, 2021 and asked him to bring his doctor’s note with him when he returned to work. He claims just before his shift was to start on September 16, 2021, the same human resources employee called him and told him his employment was terminated for missing too many days of work. Plaintiff contends he did not agree with the termination and contacted his union steward. He states the union steward attempted to file a

grievance but the plant manager refused to accept it. Plaintiff claims the plant manager discriminated against him because he accepted grievances from other employees who were terminated at the same time he was terminated. Plaintiff indicates he would like to be rehired and asks the Court to order the Defendant to reimburse him for lost wages. Standard of Review Although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, Boag v. MacDougall,

(1982) (per curiam); Haines v. Kerner,

(1972), the Court is required to dismiss an in forma pauperis action under

(e) if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989); Lawler v. Marshall,

(6th Cir. 1990); Sistrunk v. City of Strongsville,

(6th Cir. 1996). An action has no arguable basis in law when a Defendant is immune from suit or when a Plaintiff claims a violation of a legal interest which clearly does not exist. Neitzke,

. An action has no arguable factual basis when the allegations are delusional or rise to the level of the irrational or “wholly incredible.” Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992);

Lawler,

. When determining whether the Plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Court must construe the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, accept all factual allegations as true, and determine whether the Complaint contains “enough fact to state a claim to 2 relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,

(2007). The Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds for relief “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”

Although a Complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, its “factual allegations must be enough to

raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true.”

The Court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan v. Allain,

(1986). The Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009), further explains the “plausibility” requirement, stating that “ 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.” Iqbal,

. Furthermore, “the plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but

it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a Defendant acted unlawfully.”

This determination is a “context-specific task that requires the reviewing Court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.”

Analysis The Court is aware that, at this stage, Plaintiff is not required to plead his discrimination claim with heightened specificity. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A.,

(2002). Nevertheless, the Plaintiff’s allegations must still meet the facial plausibility standard set out

Twombly and Iqbal. Even though a Complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, its “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the Complaint are true.” New Albany Tractor v. Lousiville Tractor,

(6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Twombly,

.) 3 Plaintiff’s Complaint never rises above the speculative level. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e–2(a). The Court is left to guess at the basis for Plaintiff’s Title VII claim. He does not mention his race, color, religion, gender or national origin and he does not allege facts to suggest that any of these was a factor in his loss of employment. This is not sufficient to cross the threshold of basic pleading requirements in federal court. See Fed. Civ. R. 8 Conclusion Accordingly, this action is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to

(e). The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be

taken in good faith.1 IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ SOLOMON OLIVER, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

March 29, 2023

1

(a)(3) provides: An appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial court certifies that it is not taken in good faith. 4