Macon v. Locke Supply

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STEVEN MACON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-2380-SLP
)
LOCKE SUPPLY, )
)
Defendant. )
O R D E R
Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 4] against a
Defendant, Locke Supply. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is subject to screening pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.§ 1915(e)(2) and the Court may sua sponte dismiss the Complaint if it “fails
to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” Id., §1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
The Court previously dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to comply with
Rule 12 and Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but gave him leave to amend.
See Order [Doc. No. 3]. The Amended Complaint suffers from similar deficiencies. While
Plaintiff provided more factual allegations, the Court is unable to discern the nature of the
claim(s) he intends to raise. Plaintiff makes references to a discrimination and retaliation
claim but does not set forth any allegations relating to a protected classification.1 Plaintiff
alleges “[t]he true motivating factor behind my termination was illegal retaliation for
documenting and reporting an unsafe workplace environment.” Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 4]
1 Plaintiff’s original Complaint [Doc. No. 1] previously alleged discrimination and retaliation by
Locke Supply on the basis of “race, color, and age.” See Compl. [Doc. No. 1] at 3. Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint makes no reference to such classifications.
Case 5:26-cv-02380-SLP Document 5 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 3

2
at 3. Even if the Court were to construe Plaintiff’s allegation as a claim of retaliation under
the statutes relating to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), courts
have consistently found there is no private right of action for a retaliation claim under
OSHA. See, e.g., Chaney v. Wal-mart Stores Inc., No. CIV-15-592-R, 2015 WL 6692108,
*9 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2025) (collecting circuit court authority that hold “OSHA contains
no private right of action”); Rakestraw v. Hershey Company, No. 25-2682-JWB, 2026 WL
1109359 (D. Kan. April 24, 2026) (“Plaintiff’s OSHA retaliation claim fails because the
plain language of 29 U.S.C. § 660(c) . . . does not confer a private right of action.”).
Furthermore, even if Plaintiff could bring a retaliation claim under OSHA, Plaintiff
has not exhausted his remedies as required by the statute. “Any employee who believes
that he has been discharged or other discriminated against by any person in violation of
this subsection may, within thirty days after such violation occurs, file a complaint with the
Secretary [of the Department of Labor] alleging such discrimination.” 29 U.S.C. §
660(c)(2); see also Chaney, 2015 WL 6692108 at *10 (finding, in the alternative, that
plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative requirements of § 660). Plaintiff has not alleged
that he filed a complaint with the Department of Labor, within thirty days of his termination
on November 23, 2025, relating to discrimination and retaliation for reporting an OSHA
violation.
Regardless of whether OSHA allows a private right of action for retaliation, Plaintiff
has failed to state a viable claim. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)
(A complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.”); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Because Plaintiff’s Amended
Case 5:26-cv-02380-SLP Document 5 Filed 10/13/26 Page 2 of 3

3
Complaint fails to state any claims upon which relief may be granted, the Court finds that
the action is subject to dismissal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. A separate judgment of dismissal shall be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of October, 2026.
Case 5:26-cv-02380-SLP Document 5 Filed 10/13/26 Page 3 of 3