Pittman v. Nice-Pak Products Inc

• Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas
• Decided: September 20, 2019
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00239
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION EDDIE LAREECE PITTMAN PLAINTIFF No. 3:19-cv-239-DPM NICE-PAK PRODUCTS, INC. DEFENDANT ORDER 1. Pittman’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, Ne 1, is granted. 2. A temp agency placed Pittman at Nice-Pak. He then applied for a permanent position there. Before telling him whether he got it, Nice-Pak fired him from the temp job. Pittman claims it was because of his race and gun-related criminal history. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission declined to pursue the matter, but informed Pittman of his right to sue. Within the ninety-day period thereafter, Pittman filed this case. The Court dismisses without prejudice Pittman’s claim of discrimination due to criminal history. He hasn't pleaded a statistics- based disparate impact on members of his race. Green v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 523 F.2d 1290, 1294-95 (8th Cir. 1975). Pittman has a plausible race-based discrimination claim. He hasn’t identified his race, but he says it played a role in his firing. His other allegations suggest he was qualified at least for the temp job, leading to an inference that Nice-Pak let him go at least in part because of his race. Grant v. City of Blytheville, Arkansas, 841 F.3d 767, 773-74

(8th Cir. 2016). Service on Nice-Pak is therefore appropriate. Gentile v. Missouri Department of Corrections & Human Resources, 986 F.2d 214, 217 (8th Cir. 1993). 3. The Court directs the Clerk to prepare a summons for Nice-Pak using the address provided by Pittman. And the Court directs the U.S. Marshal for the Eastern District of Arkansas to serve the summons and complaint without prepayment of fees. So Ordered. SPrarhalip D.P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge _ 20 Septemlu a0 4

-2-