Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00894/USCOURTS-almd-2_15-cv-00894-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

KEITH I. GORDON, JR., )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-894-WKW

)

HYUNDAI MOTORS )

MANUFACTURING, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

On April 20, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 17)

to which no timely objections have been filed. The Recommendation correctly 

concludes that dismissal of the complaint, as amended, is required prior to service 

of process for failure of Plaintiff to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not pleaded a cognizable claim under 29 

C.F.R. § 1910.141(c)(1)(i), and the McDonnell Douglas1 prima facie elements, when 

used as a guide, demonstrate that the complaint, as amended, does not plausibly 

suggest intentional discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. See Powell v. Harsco Metal, No. 2:12-CV-4080, 2013 

WL 3242759, at *5 (N.D. Ala. June 20, 2013) (explaining that the McDonnell 

 

1 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Case 2:15-cv-00894-WKW-WC Document 18 Filed 05/31/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Douglas prima facie elements can provide a “helpful guide” in the analysis of 

whether a complaint plausibly demonstrates intentional discrimination) (citing

Bowers v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 509 F. App’x 906, 911 (11th Cir. 

2013)); see also Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol., 516 F.3d 955, 974 (11th 

Cir. 2008) (“Although a Title VII complaint need not allege facts sufficient to make 

out a classic McDonnell Douglas prima facie case, Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 

U.S. 506, 511 . . . (2002), it must provide enough factual matter (taken as true) to 

suggest intentional race discrimination.” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)), abrogated on other grounds by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), 

and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Accordingly, upon an independent review of the file and upon consideration 

of the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 17) is 

ADOPTED; and

(2) Plaintiff’s amended complaint (Doc. # 15) is DISMISSED without 

prejudice prior to service of process.

A separate final judgment will be entered.

DONE this 31st day of May, 2016. 

 /s/ W. Keith Watkins 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:15-cv-00894-WKW-WC Document 18 Filed 05/31/16 Page 2 of 2