Texas employee strikes out on trifecta of claims

Employees often make as many claims as possible when suing their employer. It’s a strategy—but not a very good one, as a recent Texas case makes clear.

Facts

Eric Lamar Ellis is a gay Black man who worked for Cargill Meat Solutions as a food safety quality representative. While employed, Cargill suffered a ransomware attack that compromised the company’s customer and employee information.

Things got worse, and Ellis claimed he was subjected to slurs based on his race and sexual orientation. He ultimately resigned. He then sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and included an invasion of privacy claim as well.

Strike 1: No Title VII claim

In defending yourself as an employer, you start with what’s called the complaint, in which the former employee alleges the facts supporting their claims. The key word is “facts,” not conclusions.

What did he claim on racial discrimination? Ellis claimed he was subjected to “repetitive racial slurs.” Sounds bad, and it is, if true. But the law requires that he also allege the Three Ws: who said them, what they said, and when they were said. Otherwise, as the court mentioned, his claim is only a “naked assertion.” And a naked assertion is like a chocolate-covered doughnut—tasty-looking but full of empty calories.