Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mensah v. Cambridge Security, SVC

United States District Court, Third Circuit

January 14, 2014



SUSAN D. WIGENTON, District Judge.

Before the Court is defendant Cambridge Security Services Corp.'s ("Defendant" or "Cambridge")[1] Motion to Dismiss pro se plaintiff Samuel Mensah's ("Plaintiff")[2] Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).

This Court, having considered the parties' submissions, decides this matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78.

For the reasons set forth below, this Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.


Defendant, a provider of security services, employed Plaintiff from July 23, 2010 to about November 3, 2010. (Compl. ¶ 1, Ex. A; Pl.'s Opp'n 6; Def.'s Br. 3.) According to Plaintiff[3], he was set to receive an hourly wage of thirteen dollars, as was advertised in Defendant's job posting. (Pl.'s Opp'n 2.) However, Plaintiff contends, that his paychecks were often miscalculated and delayed. ( Id. ) On one occasion, Plaintiff alleges, Cesar Saona ("Saona"), Defendant's Director of Special Operations, retained possession of Plaintiff's paycheck for more than three weeks. ( Id. at 3-5.) As a result, Plaintiff was without electricity in his home for approximately two or three months. ( Id. ) Plaintiff asserts that he complained to Saona, who subsequently advised him to contact the Payroll Department. ( Id. at 2.) However, according to Plaintiff, contacting the Payroll Department was to no avail. ( Id. at 2-3.

Additionally, Plaintiff contends that he complained to Saona about his work conditions. ( Id. at 8.) For instance, Plaintiff refused to work at the AutoZone locations in East Orange, Irvington, Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson, New Jersey because Defendant would place him there unarmed. ( Id. at 7.) According to Plaintiff, this was contradictory to AutoZone Management's policy, which required armed guards. ( Id. ) As a result of these complaints, Plaintiff argues, Saona undertook to either find a basis to terminate him or force him to quit. ( Id. at 8.)

Plaintiff alleges that on October 8, 2010, he agreed to stop by Saona's residence to obtain the paycheck that was due to him almost three weeks prior. ( Id. at 4.) The next day, on October 9, 2010, Plaintiff and his son arrived at Saona's home, where Saona allegedly remarked to Plaintiff's son: "How did an African beast like him manage to find an Italian?" ( Id. ) Plaintiff further contends Saona previously made a similar comment, where he asked Plaintiff: "Is your wife Spanish?" ( Id. at 5.) According to Plaintiff, Saona made such statements either to force him to quit or to provoke him so as to terminate him. ( Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff alleges that to find or make up a basis for termination, Saona once accused him of stealing 300 Motorola radios while he worked crowd control at a Liberty State Park show. ( Id. at 6.)

On November 3, 2010, upon reporting to work, Sharifah Robinson ("Robinson") and Pedro Gonzalez ("Gonzalez"), Defendant's Director of Operations and Director of Human Resources, respectively, asked Plaintiff to a sign a warning letter for allegedly stealing a card board poster while providing security detail at a Pathmark in Belleville, New Jersey. (Pl.'s Opp'n 6-7; Def.'s Br. 3.) In response, Plaintiff denied the truth of the allegation and refused to sign the documents. (Pl.'s Opp'n 6-7.) Subsequently, Plaintiff alleges, Defendant relieved him of his duty for the day and failed to compensate him. ( Id. at 7.) That was Plaintiff's last day of work. ( Id. at 6-7.)


On October 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Charge of Discrimination[4] ("NCD") with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") in New Jersey. (Siachos Decl., Ex. A.) In his NCD, Plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the[5] ( Id. ) On June 22, 2012, the EEOC issued its Final Determination concluding that the information obtained did not establish a violation "with respect to [Plaintiff's] allegations that he was discriminated and/or retaliated against." (Siachos Decl., Ex. B.)[6]

Subsequently, on September 18, 2012, Plaintiff filed charges with the New Jersey Division of Ciivl Rights alleging discriminatory conduct.[7] (Compl. ¶¶ 6-7.) On September 20, 2012, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint in this Court alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Dkt No. 1.) On June 19, 2013, Defendant filed its Answer. (Dkt. No. 12.) On July 26, 2013, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss. (Dkt. No. 22.) On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.