Lewis v. The Dow Chemical Company

E.D. Michigan

Lewis v. The Dow Chemical Company

DecidedJanuary 23, 2025

Docket1:24-cv-12911

StatusUnknown

This text of Lewis v. The Dow Chemical Company (Lewis v. The Dow Chemical Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Michigan primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lewis v. The Dow Chemical Company, (E.D. Mich. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BOBBY LEWIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-12911 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson Vv. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT [1]

Bobby Lewis alleges he was discriminated against on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. (See ECF No. 1.) He brings claims of racial discrimination in violation of § 1981 and retaliation, race discrimination, and hostile workplace environment in violation of ELCRA. On January 17, 2025, Lewis’ former employee, the Dow Chemical Company, moved to dismiss each count of Lewis’ complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 11.) Without expressing any view regarding the merits of Dow’s motion to dismiss, the Court will grant Lewis the opportunity to file an amended complaint to remedy the purported defects that Dow has raised in its motion to dismiss. The Court does not anticipate allowing Lewis another opportunity to amend to add factual allegations that he could now include in his amended complaint. So this is Lewis’ opportunity to allege all additional facts that may cure any of the alleged

deficiencies in his complaint and that could support his claims. See Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267, 2783 (6th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, by February 7, 2025, Lewis shall either file (1) an amended complaint or, if he believes that amendment is not necessary, (2) a response brief to Dow’s motion. If Lewis elects the first option, Dow’s motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice to filing a second motion to dismiss—if warranted. Under either option, if the Court ultimately finds that the factual allegations supporting a claim do not “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), the Court will likely dismiss that claim with prejudice. Thus, as stated, this is Lewis’ one opportunity to allege all additional facts that may cure any of the alleged deficiencies in the complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2025

s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BOBBY LEWIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 24-12911 Honorable Laurie J. Michelson Vv. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY, Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT [1]

Bobby Lewis alleges he was discriminated against on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. (See ECF No. 1.) He brings claims of racial discrimination in violation of § 1981 and retaliation, race discrimination, and hostile workplace environment in violation of ELCRA. On January 17, 2025, Lewis’ former employee, the Dow Chemical Company, moved to dismiss each count of Lewis’ complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 11.) Without expressing any view regarding the merits of Dow’s motion to dismiss, the Court will grant Lewis the opportunity to file an amended complaint to remedy the purported defects that Dow has raised in its motion to dismiss. The Court does not anticipate allowing Lewis another opportunity to amend to add factual allegations that he could now include in his amended complaint. So this is Lewis’ opportunity to allege all additional facts that may cure any of the alleged

deficiencies in his complaint and that could support his claims. See Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267, 2783 (6th Cir. 2018). Accordingly, by February 7, 2025, Lewis shall either file (1) an amended complaint or, if he believes that amendment is not necessary, (2) a response brief to Dow’s motion. If Lewis elects the first option, Dow’s motion to dismiss will be denied without prejudice to filing a second motion to dismiss—if warranted. Under either option, if the Court ultimately finds that the factual allegations supporting a claim do not “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged,” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), the Court will likely dismiss that claim with prejudice. Thus, as stated, this is Lewis’ one opportunity to allege all additional facts that may cure any of the alleged deficiencies in the complaint. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2025

s/Laurie J. Michelson LAURIE J. MICHELSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lewis v. The Dow Chemical Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lewis-v-the-dow-chemical-company-mied-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack