BRIGHT

v.

ARGOS CEMENT USA, LLC

Plaintiff Leon Bright requests to proceed in forma pauperis and filed a complaint. (Doc. 1, 7). Based on deficiencies in Mr. Bright’s complaint, the court took Mr. Bright’s motion under advisement and directed Mr. Bright to amend his complaint to state a viable cause of action to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 8). In addition, the court directed Mr. Bright to provide additional financial information supporting his affidavit of indigency. (Id.). Mr. Bright filed an amended complaint and an amended affidavit of indigency with additional information about his finances. (Docs. 9, 10). Although the court is satisfied Mr. Bright meets the financial requirements to proceed in forma pauperis, Mr. Bright’s amended complaint still lacks viable causes of action. Mr. Bright’s amended complaint attempts to bring claims against Mr. Warren, individually,¹ and Argos Cement USA, LLC (Argos) (collectively, the defendants). (See Doc. 9, p. 2). Mr. Bright alleges he was unlawfully and discriminatorily terminated from his employment at Argos by plant superintendent Mr. Warren because of Mr. Bright’s “race, gender, and sexual preference as a heterosexual African American male” in violation of under Title VII and 20 U.S.C. § 1981.2 (Id. at pp. 7–9). Mr. Bright also raises a claim of assault. (Id. at pp. 9–10). Title VII prohibits an employer³ from “discriminat[ing] against any individual with respect to his [terms and conditions] of employment, because of such individual’s race. . .” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). “Section 1981 prohibits intentional race discrimination in the making and enforcement of public and private contracts, including employment contracts.” 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a); Ferrill v. Parker Grp., Inc., 168 F. 3d 468, 472 (11th Cir. 1999). Claims brought under

71 F. 3d 801, 805 (11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that claims under § 1981 uses identical methods of proof as Title VII claims and are governed by the McDonnell Douglas framework). For Mr. Bright to prevail on his race discrimination claims, Mr. Bright must show that his employer intentionally discriminated against him based on his race. Mr. Bright may meet his burden using direct evidence, statistical evidence that shows a pattern or practice of discrimination, or circumstantial evidence based on the four-pronged test outlined in McDonnell Douglas. See

Walker v. NationsBank of Fla. N.A., 53 F. 3d 1548, 1555-56 (11th Cir. 1995). Mr. Bright has alleged no direct evidence or evidence that indicates the defendants had a pattern or practice of discriminating against African American individuals. Thus, Mr. Bright may establish discriminatory termination by showing he: (1) was a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for the job, (3) suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) was replaced by someone outside his protected class “or was treated less favorably

(1) Mr. Bright’s amended motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 10) is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. By October 31, 2022, Mr. Bright must file a second amended complaint that states a viable cause of action. Failure to do so may result in a recommendation of denial of the motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ®

(2) Mr. Bright’s motion for a case management report (Doc. 12) is DENIED without prejudice. Under Local Rule 3.02, the parties must file a case management report within forty days after any defendant appears in an action originating in this court. See Local Rule 3.02(b)(1), M.D. Fla. Thus, Mr. Bright’s motion is premature. ENTERED in Tampa, Florida on October⁵, 2022. Aranda. Aynoth Saag

AMANDA ARNOLD SANSONE

United States Magistrate Judge cc: Leon Bright 2022-10666 520 N. Falkenburg Rd. Tampa, FL 33619