Quantcast

McGlynn allows pro se job discrimination claim against American Water to proceed

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Thursday, November 21, 2024

McGlynn allows pro se job discrimination claim against American Water to proceed

Federal Court
Mcglynnhorizontal

McGlynn

EAST ST. LOUIS – Plaintiff Lynette Jackson alleged job discrimination against American Water in Alton well enough to pursue damages, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled on June 1.  

He denied a motion to dismiss a suit she filed without a lawyer, finding that federal rules reject the approach that pleading is a game of skill. 

“She has set forth a jurisdictional basis, a statement that she was discriminated against, and a request for damages,” McGlynn wrote. “That is enough.” 

According to a brief American Water filed in March, Jackson wasn’t working due to doctor’s orders. 

Jackson sued the company in February 2020, claiming her trouble began when she found it owed employees four years of differential pay. 

She claimed she gave her union 15 names for a class action, and the union asked for a chance to talk with the company. 

She wrote that the company agreed to pay out. 

“Once that happened the company really made my life terrible,” she wrote. 

She claimed they looked for errors and tried to find things to get her in trouble. 

“It was so bad that I became suicidal,” she wrote. 

She claimed her supervisor admitted to her and to human resources that another supervisor told her to harass her. 

“Management slandered my name and told my friends not to talk or hang around me because I was trouble,” she wrote. 

She wrote that she wanted to be the happy giving person she was. 

She filed the complaint in the Eastern District of Missouri, where she resides. 

District Judge Ronnie White transferred it to the Southern District of Illinois. 

American Water counsel Patricia Martin moved to dismiss it, claiming Jackson didn’t connect the conduct she complained about to her race or color. 

She claimed Jackson didn’t check a box for color when she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. 

“Plaintiff does not allege that she complained of harassment based on her race or other protected characteristic,” Martin wrote. 

Jackson responded, “Please don’t dismiss this case as another employee may or is going through the same thing. 

“Let’s save lives and not take our lives away.” 

“Thank you for taking time out to read this. It’s much much more to tell. 

“I want me back.” 

McGlynn dismissed the complaint and granted leave to amend it. 

Jackson amended it to state she was behind on all her bills and her health continued to decline. 

She asked for punitive damages and $200,000 for pain and suffering. 

Martin moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming it wasn’t divided into counts and was difficult to follow. 

She claimed the conduct Jackson alleged “is not sufficiently severe or pervasive to be actionable as a matter of law.” 

McGlynn found that the complaint wasn’t a model of clarity but that he must hold it to less stringent standards than pleadings of lawyers. 

He separated it into counts of retaliation, discrimination on the basis of race, and discrimination on the basis of disability. 

He found Jackson didn’t need to allege every fact and conclusion she deemed relevant or set out every allegation in separate paragraphs. 

“She need only state in the plainest of words her case and why she is entitled to relief,” he wrote. 

He found a complaint doesn’t even need a correct legal theory. 

He found the purpose of pleading is to facilitate a proper decision on the merits. 

He set a June 22 deadline for American Water’s response to the complaint.

More News