United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation (the “Report”), filed on February
21, 2018. (ECF No. 19.) The Report recommends denying
Defendant Fujitsu America International's
(“Fujitsu”) Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative to Stay, and Compel Arbitration (the
“Motion to Dismiss”) (ECF No. 9). The Report also
recommends denying Plaintiff Matthew Lewis Harris's two
motions for leave to amend complaint (ECF Nos. 15 & 17).
Fujitsu objected on February 26, 2017. (ECF No. 20.) Harris
has not objected, and the deadline to do so has passed.
following reasons, the Report is ADOPTED in part and REJECTED
in part. Harris's motions for leave to amend complaint
are DENIED. Fujitsu's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Harris's complaint is DISMISSED.
August 7, 2017, Harris filed a pro se complaint
against Fujitsu, alleging violations of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e,
et seq. (Compl., ECF No. 1 ¶ 1.) Plaintiff
alleges that he was discriminated against based on his race,
retaliated against, and suffered defamation of character
(Id. ¶¶ 3, 6.) He alleges that his
employment was terminated after he reported harassment.
(Id. ¶¶ 9-10.)
filed its Answer on August 24, 2017. (ECF No. 8.) The same
day, Fujitsu filed the Motion to Dismiss, seeking to dismiss
or stay based on a 2008 Agreement to Arbitrate between the
parties (the “Arbitration Agreement”). (ECF No.
9; ECF No. 8-1.)
September 28, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Charmian
G. Claxton ordered Harris to show cause within 14 days why
the Court should not “file a Report and Recommendation
recommending that the District Court enter an Order granting
the Motion.” (ECF No. 47.)
responded to the Magistrate Judge's order on October 11,
2017. (ECF No. 14.)
November 28, 2017, Harris filed a Motion for Leave to File
Amended Complaint, seeking to add three individual defendants
and bring a claim for “malice and retribution.”
(ECF No. 15.) Fujitsu responded on December 1, 2017. (ECF No.
December 18, 2017, Harris filed another Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint, seeking to add three defendants,
bring a claim for “malice and retribution, ” and
bring a claim under the Tennessee Public Protection Act,
T.C.A. §§ 50-1-34, et seq. (ECF No. 17.)
Fujitsu responded on December 21, 2017. (ECF No. 18.)
February 21, 2018, the Magistrate Judge entered the Report.
(ECF No. 19.) It recommends denying Harris's motions to
amend and Fujitsu's Motion to Dismiss. (Id.) The
Report concludes that, as to a claim for “malice and
retribution, ” Harris's “proposed amended
[complaint] is futile not only because it fails to state a
basis in the law but is also futile given the Agreement to
Arbitrate.” (Id. at 111.) The Report concludes
that Harris's attempt to add three individual defendants
is futile because “[o]fficers, supervisors, managers
and employees are not individually liable under Title
VII.” (Id. at 111-12.) The Report also
concludes that Harris's Tennessee Protection Act claim is
futile because “[i]t does not allege any public
communication regarding the conduct or action taken to
promote the public interest.” (Id. at 113.)
Report recommends denying Fujitsu's Motion to Dismiss
because the Arbitration Agreement is “not attached to
or referenced in the Plaintiff's Complaint, ” and
thus cannot be considered on motion to dismiss. (Id.
objected on February 26, 2018. (ECF No. 20.) Harris has not
objected to the Report.