Park v. TCH Social - Austin

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
JP PARK,
Plaintiff
v.
TCH SOCIAL – AUSTIN,
Defendant
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
No. 1:25-CV-01785-ADA-DH
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The undersigned submits this report and recommendation to the United States
District Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Rule 1 of Appendix C of the Local
Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Before the Court is Plaintiff JP Park’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Dkt. 5. Because Park is requesting permission to proceed in forma pauperis, the
undersigned must review and make a recommendation on the merits of his claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
I. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The Court has reviewed Park’s financial affidavit and determined he is
indigent and should be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, the
Court hereby GRANTS Park’s request for in forma pauperis status, Dkt. 5. The Clerk
of the Court shall file the complaint without payment of fees or costs or giving security
Case 1:25-cv-01785-ADA-DH Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 6

2
therefor pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). This indigent status is granted subject to a
later determination that the action should be dismissed if the allegation of poverty is
untrue or the action is found frivolous or malicious pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
Park is further advised that, although he has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, a court may, in its discretion, impose costs of court at the conclusion of this
lawsuit, as in other cases. Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 621 (5th Cir. 1994).
As stated below, the undersigned has made a § 1915(e) review of the claims
made in this complaint and recommends that Park’s discrimination claims brought
under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII be dismissed but
finds that his Title VII retaliation claim should be allowed to proceed.
II. REVIEW OF THE MERITS OF THE CLAIM
Because Park has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the
undersigned is required by statute to review his complaint. Section 1915(e)(2)
provides in relevant part that “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that … the action or appeal (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state
a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a
defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). A complaint is
frivolous if it “lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact.” Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). A
claim lacks an arguable basis in law when it is “based on an indisputably meritless
legal theory.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327.
Case 1:25-cv-01785-ADA-DH Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Pro se complaints are liberally construed in favor of the plaintiff. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). However, pro se status does not offer a plaintiff
an “impenetrable shield, for one acting pro se has no license to harass others, clog the
judicial machinery with meritless litigation, and abuse already overloaded court
dockets.” Farguson v. MBank Houston N.A., 808 F.2d 358, 359 (5th Cir. 1986).
Park alleges that he was terminated from his employment at Defendant TCH
Social – Austin (“TCH”) shortly after reporting to management that “supervisors
mistreated and harassed female employees.” Dkt. 1, at 1. Park further believes that
his termination “involved discrimination based on race, national origin[], and
disability or perceived disability, in addition to retaliation for protected activity.” Id.
After receiving a notice of right to sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, Park filed this lawsuit. Id. at 2; Dkt. 1-3. Park brings claims against
TCH under Title VII and the ADA. Dkt. 1, at 1.
The undersigned finds that Park has not sufficiently stated claims for
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII or the ADA. To establish a prima
facie claim of racial discrimination under Title VII, Park must plead that he was
“(1) a member of a protected class; (2) qualified for the position held; (3) subject to an
adverse employment action; and (4) treated differently from others similarly
situated.” Abarca v. Metro. Transit Auth., 404 F.3d 938, 941 (5th Cir. 2005). To
establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff
must prove that he has a disability, that he is qualified for the job, and that he
suffered an adverse employment decision because of his disability. Turco v. Hoechst
Case 1:25-cv-01785-ADA-DH Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Celanese Corp., 101 F.3d 1090, 1092-93 (5th Cir. 1996). In support of his
discrimination claims, Park alleges only that he “believes that his termination and
workplace treatment involved discrimination based on race, national origin, and
disability.” Dkt. 1, at 1. Such a conclusory assertion is in insufficient to state a claim
for discrimination in violation of Title VII or the ADA. McDonald v. Exxonmobil
Chem. Co., No. CIV.A. H-00-4172, 2002 WL 47973, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2002),
aff’d, 48 F. App’x 917 (5th Cir. 2002) (“Unsubstantiated allegations and conclusory
statements are insufficient to support a claim of discrimination.” (citing Grimes v.
Tex. Dep’t of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 139 (5th Cir. 1996))).
The undersigned will recommend that the District Judge dismiss Park’s
discrimination claims as frivolous.
Park has, however, stated a non-frivolous claim for retaliation in violation of
Title VII. To state a claim for retaliation in violation of Title VII, Park must establish
that (1) he engaged in activity protected by Title VII; (2) the defendant took adverse
action against him; and (3) a causal connection exists between the protected activity
and the adverse action. Wright v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 990 F.3d 428, 433 (5th Cir.
2021). A plaintiff need not submit evidence to establish a prima facie case at the
pleading stage; to survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff need only “plausibly allege
facts going to the ultimate elements of the claim.” Id. Park has sufficiently stated a
claim for retaliation in violation of Title VII by alleging that he opposed
discrimination against women in his workplace by complaining to management and
that TCH terminated his employment the following month during a meeting Park
Case 1:25-cv-01785-ADA-DH Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 4 of 6

5
had set up to report his concerns about gender-based discrimination at TCH. Dkt. 1,
at 1; Wright, 990 F.3d at 433; Brandon v. Sage Corp., 61 F. Supp. 3d 632, 649 (W.D.
Tex. 2014), aff’d, 808 F.3d 266 (5th Cir. 2015) (finding that “informal opposition to a
discriminatory practice can constitute protected activity” for the purposes of a
retaliation claim brought under Title VII).
III. ORDERS AND RECOMMENDATION
The undersigned hereby GRANTS Park’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis. Dkt. 5. Because the undersigned finds that Park’s Title VII retaliation claim
should not be dismissed as frivolous at this time, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of
the Court to issue summons and the United States Marshal to commence service of
process, including service of Park’s complaint upon the named Defendant under Rules
4 and 5 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The undersigned RECOMMENDS the District Judge DISMISS Park’s
discrimination claims arising under Title VII and the ADA without prejudice
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
IV. WARNINGS
The parties may file objections to this report and recommendation. A party
filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to
which objections are being made. The District Judge need not consider frivolous,
conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. United States Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d
419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987). A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed
findings and recommendations contained in this report within fourteen days after the
Case 1:25-cv-01785-ADA-DH Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 5 of 6

6
party is served with a copy of the report shall bar that party from de novo review by
the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations in the report and,
except upon grounds of plain error, shall bar the party from appellate review of
unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District
Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985);
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
SIGNED January 5, 2026.
DUSTIN M. HOWELL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01785-ADA-DH Document 6 Filed 01/05/26 Page 6 of 6