3 of 4 claims in discrimination suit vs IPI dismissed

The federal court has granted Imperial Pacific International (CNMI) LLC’s motion to dismiss three of four claims in a race discrimination lawsuit filed against IPI by a former employee.

In an order on Friday, U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona granted IPI’s motion to dismiss Joshua Gray’s claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (immigration violations), wrongful failure to hire, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Manglona dismissed without prejudice Gray’s claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. That means Gray can re-file the two claims. Gray, who is African American, was given until Nov. 1, 2019, to file a second amended complaint.

Manglona dismissed with prejudice his claim for wrongful failure to hire. Dismissal with prejudice means Gray can no longer re-file this claim.

Manglona denied IPI’s motion to dismiss Gray’s claim of race discrimination for wrongful termination.

As for Gray’s claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy, the judge said that stating such a claim requires the public policy to be grounded in a statute or another source.

Manglona agreed with IPI that vague references to immigration laws and public policy are insufficient to put them on notice of the claim. However, because it appears that Gray can identify the source or sources of public policy, Manglona allowed Gray to file a second amended complaint.

On the claim for wrongful failure to hire, the judge noted that Gray’s counsel conceded at the hearing that both wrongful failure to hire claims are time-barred.

Because amending the claim would be futile, Manglona said that Gray’s request to amend his complaint to reassert the failure to hire claim from March 2017 is denied.

Pertaining to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Manglona said Gray alleges that he “has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional and physical distress.”

While sparse, these allegations are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, Manglona said.

However, the judge said, because Gray has not alleged outrageous conduct to satisfy the first element, he has failed to state such claim.

Manglona said Gray has not alleged that he was subjected to racial harassment. Therefore, Manglona said, Gray has not alleged sufficient facts to take his claim outside of the normal course of employment.

Manglona allows Gray to file an amended complaint, but on the condition that he may only replead the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim if he can allege specific facts showing how the racial discrimination he experienced was outside the normal course of employment.

On the claim for race discrimination for wrongful termination, Manglona finds that Gray has alleged sufficient facts to state such claim based on all the events that led to his job termination on Jan. 24, 2019.

William Fitzgerald is counsel for Gray. Kelley Butcher is counsel for IPI.

According to the complaint, Gray was allegedly informed in March and April 2018, that his job responsibilities would be changed to assist with a “floating hotel.”

Gray complained to IPI’s legal counsel that this assignment was a demotion, but the counsel allegedly ignored his complaint.

In January 2019, a senior executive of IPI allegedly told Gray that he has been instructed to fire Gray, but he (the senior executive) refused to do so.

The owner of IPI allegedly informed this senior executive that he wanted Gray fired and that a Chinese woman, Lucy Guo, a non-U.S. citizen, would handle, the hotel operations.

Fitzgerald said IPI terminated Gray’s employment on Jan. 24, 2019, without reason or justification.

Fitzgerald said as a result of IPI’s discrimination on the basis of Gray being an African American and a U.S. citizen, plaintiff has been denied an employment opportunity and substantial compensation and benefits.

IPI has denied the allegations.