Staffing Plus racial discrimination lawsuit dismissed by federal judge

By Kyla Asbury | Jul 9, 2018

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge granted Staffing Plus Inc.'s motion to dismiss a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by a former independent contractor, according to an opinion filed June 20 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge granted Staffing Plus Inc.'s motion to dismiss a racial discrimination lawsuit filed by a former independent contractor, according to an opinion filed June 20 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The opinion written by U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe said the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim and because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

"Because plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to show that he was terminated because of his race, and because the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his remaining claims, defendant’s motion (to dismiss) will be granted," the ruling said.

The suit was filed by Dominique Jordan in 2017. Jordan alleged that Staffing Plus terminated his contract based on his race.


U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe  

The opinion said Jordan was arrested during his tenure as an independent contractor for Staffing Plus. The court said the charges against Jordan were eventually dropped, but not before the arrest was reported by local news outlets. After the arrest was made public, Jordan's contract was terminated by Staffing Plus.

However, Jordan claimed that if he were white, his employment contract would not have been terminated.

In her ruling, Rufe said Jordan did not offer any proof backing up his argument that he was fired because of his "perceived race," nor did he allege that "lighter-skinned" contractors were treated differently.

Jordan also did not show that Staffing Plus's firing was part of a pattern of discrimination related to his race, according to the opinion.

The ruling said his is not the first time Jordan's discrimination claims have been dismissed.

"(Jordan) has already amended (his complaint) once with the benefit of the court’s earlier opinion dismissing his original complaint, and has still failed to allege any facts supporting his discrimination claim beyond bare assertions," Rufe said in her opinion. "Thus, leave to further amend would be futile."

In addition, Rufe said that if Jordan could present viable claims, he could assert them in state court, as the federal court does not have jurisdiction over the case.

Want to get notified whenever we write about U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ?

Sign-up Next time we write about U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.

Organizations in this Story

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

More News

The Record Network