United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lake Charles Division
KATHLEEN KAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is a pro se civil rights complaint under
Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
filed in forma pauperis by plaintiff Sharika January
(“January”). Doc. 1. This matter has been
referred to the undersigned for preliminary review as
mandated by 28 U.S.C. Section 1915 to determine, prior to
service of the complaint on defendants, whether the complaint
is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. Section
states that, while working at a motel in August 2013, she
complained to defendant Dipti Zaver (“Zaver”),
manager at the motel, about racially offensive remarks that
one of her coworkers had made about a black customer. Doc. 1,
p. 1. She alleges that Zaver began to treat her differently
and terminated her employment six days after the incident.
Id. She also asserts that the author of the
offensive remarks was subsequently hired by the Zaver to work
at another property. Id. A human resources form
attached to the complaint indicates that January was fired
for insubordination/disciplinary reasons. Doc. 1, att. 2, p.
filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) on October 3, 2013.
Id. at 2-9. On September 28, 2016, that agency
dismissed the suit, ruling that it was unable to conclude
that January's rights had been violated under Title VII.
Id. at 14-15. It also informed January of her right
to file a lawsuit against her employer within ninety days.
Id. at 15. January then filed the instant petition
in this court on December 22, 2016. Doc. 1.
has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis
under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This act directs a district
court to dismiss an action if the court determines that it is
frivolous or malicious or fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted. Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d
1022, 1025 (5th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)).
complaint is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law
or fact. Gonzalez v. Wyatt, 157 F.3d 1016, 1019 (5th
Cir. 1998). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted if it is clear the plaintiff cannot
prove any set of facts in support of his claim that would
entitle him to relief. Doe v. Dallas Indep. Sch.
Dist., 153 F.3d 211, 215 (5th Cir. 1998). When
determining whether a complaint is frivolous or fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted, the court
must accept plaintiff's allegations as true. Horton
v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400 (5th Cir. 1995)
(frivolity); Bradley v. Puckett, 157 F.3d at 1025
(failure to state a claim).
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., provides states that it
is unlawful for an employer to take adverse employment action
against an individual because of that individual's race,
color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2(a)(1). Although Title VII complaints are not held to
the same pleading standards as other employment
discrimination claims, a plaintiff must still allege direct
or circumstantial facts toward the "ultimate
question" of whether the adverse employment action was
inflicted because of the plaintiffs protected status. R ...