Morgan v. Sprouts Farmers Market

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Robert J Morgan,
Plaintiff,
v.
Sprouts Farmers Market,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-08217-PCT-KML
ORDER
The court dismissed plaintiff Robert J. Morgan’s original complaint because he had
“provided no factual allegations explaining why he is suing Sprouts.” (Doc. 6 at 2.) Morgan
filed an amended complaint that provides additional information regarding his employment
with Sprouts. (Doc. 7.) But the amended complaint does not provide sufficient factual
allegations supporting a plausible claim for relief. The amended complaint is dismissed,
and Morgan is given a final opportunity to amend. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1).
In the amended complaint, Morgan alleges he began working for Sprouts in June
2024. Morgan was initially praised as an excellent employee but in “October-December
2024” his “hours started getting chopped for no honest reason.” (Doc. 7 at 1.) At that same
time, unidentified “people” started “touching [his employee] file behind [his] back.” (Doc.
7 at 1.) In February and March 2025, “‘corrective actions’ suddenly appeared,” apparently
in Morgan’s employee file. (Doc. 7 at 1.) Around that same time Morgan received a “write-
up claiming [he] ‘never came back from a break,” which he alleges was incorrect. (Doc. 7
at 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-08217-KML Document 8 Filed 10/31/25 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On March 12, 2025, Morgan texted a human resources representative stating he had
“raised civil-rights concerns and was being retaliated against.” (Doc. 7 at 2.) Morgan does
not allege what “civil-rights concerns” he is referencing, when he raised these concerns, or
the individual he spoke with regarding these concerns. On April 10, 2025, Sprouts’s
attorney told Morgan he had been placed on unpaid leave and Morgan was “not to contact
any Sprouts employee or go to any store” until the attorney said otherwise. (Doc. 7 at 2.)
On April 22, 2025, Morgan received an email terminating his employment and offering
“two labels: ‘job abandonment’ or ‘resignation.’” (Doc. 7 at 2.) Morgan sent a rebuttal, but
Sprouts did not change its position and Morgan’s employment ended. Sprouts has since
indicated “job abandonment” or “resignation” as (or left blank) the reason for Morgan’s
departure and that has prevented Morgan from obtaining other employment. (Doc. 7 at 3.)
Morgan seeks $110 million for “back pay, front pay, compensatory, and punitive
[damages].” (Doc. 7 at 5.)
It appears Morgan is attempting to allege employment-based discrimination claims,
but he does not provide any factual allegations indicating he was treated differently because
of a protected characteristic such as race or sex. See Maner v. Dignity Health, 9 F.4th 1114,
1120 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Title VII prohibits discrimination against an individual in whole or
in part because of that individual’s protected characteristic.”) (simplified). Employment
discrimination laws do not establish “a general civility code, and employment practices are
not unlawful simply because they are unwise.” Id. at 1127 (simplified). In other words, if
Morgan experienced unfair treatment, but it was not based on a protected characteristic, he
cannot state plausible federal discrimination claims.
The amended complaint does not identify Morgan’s protected characteristic, what
adverse actions Morgan believes were taken against him because of that characteristic, or
why Morgan believes those actions were because of his characteristic. Without these basic
allegations, Morgan has not stated a plausible discrimination claim.
Morgan’s amended complaint references “retaliation” because of “civil-rights
concerns.” A plausible retaliation claim must be based on allegations identifying the
Case 3:25-cv-08217-KML Document 8 Filed 10/31/25 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
specific “unlawful employment practice” Morgan believed existed and complained about,
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.
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
was treated differently because of that characteristic. If Morgan is attempting to allege a
retaliation claim, he must identify the protected activity he engaged in and why he believes
later events occurred because of that protected activity.
IT IS ORDERED the Amended Complaint (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED WITH
LEAVE TO AMEND.
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
prejudice if no amended complaint is filed by that date.
Dated this 31st day of October, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-08217-KML Document 8 Filed 10/31/25 Page 3 of 3