Previous Story
Suit vs GIG dismissed
The U.S District Court for the NMI has dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit Zaji O. Zajradhara filed against GIG Partners Inc. for alleged constitutional violations.
District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has dismissed the suit versus GIG, its general controller Christylyn Montilla, assistant bar manager Bryan Mendoza Jr., and owner Takayuki Niizeki, but allowed Zajradhara to refile his claims if he wishes to do so by Feb. 11, 2021. If he fails to do this, the court will dismiss the lawsuit and close the case.
In her order, Manglona said Zajradhara, who represents himself, provides no other statement describing his claims, and instead provides the court with many exhibits attached in a disordered fashion, including email correspondences with defendants, copies of checks, and independent contractor agreement, records from his 2019 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission case, records from various cases he filed in 2017 with the CNMI Department of Labor and records from his complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice-Civil Rights Division.
“Thus, with much effort, the court has pulled together from plaintiff’s various exhibits that he may have one potentially viable claim for a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,” she said.
She said the exhibits show that Zajradhara filed a charge with U.S Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Honolulu office, alleging that he was discriminated from a bartender/waitstaff position he applied for in late 2018 at GIG because of his age, color, black and Native American race, national origin, or was retaliated against for engaging in protected activity. The EEOC dismissed the claim on Aug. 21, 2020, but Zajradhara later asked for a judicial review of the decision.
Manglona noted that the complaint must include facts that can allow the court to draw reasonable inference that the defendants are liable for the misconduct alleged. At this time, she said, Zajradhara’s allegation that the defendants violated his rights is vague, conclusory, and does not meet the requirements of Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
