Robert J Morgan v. Sprouts Farmers Market

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: October 31, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-08217
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Robert J Morgan, No. CV-25-08217-PCT-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Sprouts Farmers Market,

13 Defendant. 14 15 The court dismissed plaintiff Robert J. Morgan’s original complaint because he had 16 “provided no factual allegations explaining why he is suing Sprouts.” (Doc. 6 at 2.) Morgan 17 filed an amended complaint that provides additional information regarding his employment 18 with Sprouts. (Doc. 7.) But the amended complaint does not provide sufficient factual 19 allegations supporting a plausible claim for relief. The amended complaint is dismissed, 20 and Morgan is given a final opportunity to amend. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1). 21 In the amended complaint, Morgan alleges he began working for Sprouts in June 22 2024. Morgan was initially praised as an excellent employee but in “October-December 23 2024” his “hours started getting chopped for no honest reason.” (Doc. 7 at 1.) At that same 24 time, unidentified “people” started “touching [his employee] file behind [his] back.” (Doc. 25 7 at 1.) In February and March 2025, “‘corrective actions’ suddenly appeared,” apparently 26 in Morgan’s employee file. (Doc. 7 at 1.) Around that same time Morgan received a “write- 27 up claiming [he] ‘never came back from a break,” which he alleges was incorrect. (Doc. 7 28 at 1.) 1 On March 12, 2025, Morgan texted a human resources representative stating he had 2 “raised civil-rights concerns and was being retaliated against.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) Morgan does 3 not allege what “civil-rights concerns” he is referencing, when he raised these concerns, or 4 the individual he spoke with regarding these concerns. On April 10, 2025, Sprouts’s 5 attorney told Morgan he had been placed on unpaid leave and Morgan was “not to contact 6 any Sprouts employee or go to any store” until the attorney said otherwise. (Doc. 7 at 2.) 7 On April 22, 2025, Morgan received an email terminating his employment and offering 8 “two labels: ‘job abandonment’ or ‘resignation.’” (Doc. 7 at 2.) Morgan sent a rebuttal, but 9 Sprouts did not change its position and Morgan’s employment ended. Sprouts has since 10 indicated “job abandonment” or “resignation” as (or left blank) the reason for Morgan’s 11 departure and that has prevented Morgan from obtaining other employment. (Doc. 7 at 3.) 12 Morgan seeks $110 million for “back pay, front pay, compensatory, and punitive 13 [damages].” (Doc. 7 at 5.) 14 It appears Morgan is attempting to allege employment-based discrimination claims, 15 but he does not provide any factual allegations indicating he was treated differently because 16 of a protected characteristic such as race or sex. See Maner v. Dignity Health, 9 F.4th 1114, 17 1120 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Title VII prohibits discrimination against an individual in whole or 18 in part because of that individual’s protected characteristic.”) (simplified). Employment 19 discrimination laws do not establish “a general civility code, and employment practices are 20 not unlawful simply because they are unwise.” Id. at 1127 (simplified). In other words, if 21 Morgan experienced unfair treatment, but it was not based on a protected characteristic, he 22 cannot state plausible federal discrimination claims. 23 The amended complaint does not identify Morgan’s protected characteristic, what 24 adverse actions Morgan believes were taken against him because of that characteristic, or 25 why Morgan believes those actions were because of his characteristic. Without these basic 26 allegations, Morgan has not stated a plausible discrimination claim. 27 Morgan’s amended complaint references “retaliation” because of “civil-rights 28 concerns.” A plausible retaliation claim must be based on allegations identifying the specific “unlawful employment practice” Morgan believed existed and complained about, 2|| the adverse action Morgan suffered, and why he believes the adverse action was because □□ of his complaints. E.E.O.C. v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 720 F.2d 1008, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 1983). With no meaningful facts supporting Morgan’s retaliation claim, it is dismissed. 5 Morgan’s amended complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Morgan is || given a final opportunity to file an amended complaint. If Morgan is attempting to allege a discrimination claim, he must identify his protected characteristic and why he believes he 8 || was treated differently because of that characteristic. If Morgan is attempting to allege a 9|| retaliation claim, he must identify the protected activity he engaged in and why he believes || later events occurred because of that protected activity. 1] IT IS ORDERED the Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED WITH || LEAVE TO AMEND. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than November 13, 2025, plaintiff shall file an amended complaint. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal with 15 || prejudice if no amended complaint is filed by that date. 16 Dated this 31st day of October, 2025. 17

19 en Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-3-