Shelby v. RI RCM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
VICKI SUE SHELBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
RI RCM,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:25-cv-00727-RK
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. (Doc. 6.) The Court previously
granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and directed Plaintiff to file an amended
complaint addressing the pleading deficiencies identified by the Court, including attaching the
Charge of Discrimination filed with the EEOC. On February 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, (Doc. 6), and attached a Charge of Discrimination dated June 15, 2023, and an
Amended Charge of Discrimination dated February 19, 2024. (Doc. 6-1 at 6-11.)
The Court previously determined that Plaintiff meets the economic eligibility requirements
to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 3.) Therefore, the Court proceeds to determine whether the
Amended Complaint is “frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). For an in forma pauperis complaint to proceed beyond the Court’s initial
screening review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), the complaint “must include ‘enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” McNeal v. Nitto, Inc., No. 4:19-CV-
00125-DGK, 2019 WL 1767575, at *1 (W.D. Mo. Apr. 22, 2019) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
In the form civil employment discrimination complaint, Plaintiff asserts claims for
employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age
Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967. Specifically, she alleges claims of failure to
promote, retaliation, and harassment/hostile work environment based on her race (African
American) and age (Plaintiff indicates that she was born in 1967). (Doc. 6 at 3, 5.) In the narrative
attachment to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that in at least five instances white
Case 4:25-cv-00727-RK Document 7 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 3

2
individuals under the age of 50 were promoted “over her.” (Doc. 6-1 at 2, 4.) Plaintiff alleges
that she “made a complaint to the Defendant’s Human Resources Department (DHRD) of hostile
work environment and race discrimination in Oct[ober] 2022.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff alleges the
actions she endured were: “[g]ave her bad assignments,” “snide remarks during meetings,”
“[b]erated her during meetings,” “[w]rongly disapproved of her reports,” “[f]ailed to protect her
from hostile and racial environments,” and “belittled her.” (Id. at 3.) Defendant conducted an
investigation but did not provide any information regarding the findings and closed the case.
Plaintiff was removed “from work with the client and team where the alleged harassment
and discrimination occurred” and was told “to apply for a supervisor position on the new team.”
(Id.) However, Plaintiff alleges that when she joined the new team “the Supervisor position
disappeared.” (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that she “applied for a supervisor position with a different
team,” but “was denied that supervisor position.” (Id. at 4.) Plaintiff applied for an Operational
Manager position in April 2025, interviewed for the position, and “was told that she did not get
the position because she was ‘lacking.’” (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff then filed another complaint with
Human Resources. (Id.) Plaintiff was returned to the original team she left after filing her first
complaint for harassment and discrimination. (Id.) Plaintiff once again reached out to Human
Resources and was removed from that team. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that on February 4, 2026, she
was advised to apply for a supervisory position again “but then when Plaintiff went to apply it did
not exist.”
Plaintiff’s form civil employment discrimination Amended Complaint suffers the same
factual deficiencies as Plaintiff’s initial complaint and fails to state a plausible claim for relief
under Title VII or the ADEA for employment discrimination, retaliation, or harassment/hostile
work environment based on her race or age. To state a claim for employment discrimination based
on a failure-to-promote theory, for example, a plaintiff must allege facts plausibly showing that
(1) she is a member of a protected group, (2) she was qualified for and applied for a promotion to
an available position, (3) she was not promoted, and (4) “a similarly situated candidate, not part of
the protected group, was promoted instead.” Young v. Time Warner Cable Cap., L.P., 443 F. Supp.
2d 1109, 1125 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 1, 2006). While Plaintiff alleges generally that five white and
younger employees were promoted “over her,” it is not clear whether any of these individuals were
Case 4:25-cv-00727-RK Document 7 Filed 02/26/26 Page 2 of 3

3
promoted to the supervisor/operational lead positions to which Plaintiff had attempted to apply or
had applied to.1
“To establish retaliation under . . . Title VII . . . , a plaintiff must prove (1) he engaged in
statutorily protected activity, (2) suffered an adverse employment action, and (3) that the
engagement in a protected activity is the but-for cause of the adverse employment action.” See
Warren v. Kemp, 79 F.4th 967, 973 (8th Cir. 2023). Plaintiff fails to allege any facts suggesting a
cognizable Title VII retaliation claim. Plaintiff does not allege any facts suggesting how being
removed from a team, at her request to Human Resources, and placed on another team without
promotion constitutes unlawful employment discrimination or retaliation based on her race or age.
Finally, it is not clear on what basis Plaintiff alleges a claim for harassment or hostile work
environment. Plaintiff generally alleges that “Plaintiff was being harassed and/or racially or
sexually discriminated against,” (Doc. 6-1 at 2), and that the “harassment and discrimination
continued,” (id. at 3), but these are merely “bare recitations” of the elements of a harassment or
discrimination claim under Title VII “which on their own are insufficient to support a plausible
claim for relief.” Bass v. Univ. of Ark. Sys., No. 5:12-cv-00286-KGB, 2015 WL 5712850, at *6
(E.D. Ark. Sept. 29, 2015) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of
a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”)).
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is DISMISSED
without prejudice pursuant to the Court’s initial screening review pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Roseann A. Ketchmark
ROSEANN A. KETCHMARK, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DATED: February 26, 2026
1 The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the April 2025 and February 2026
attempts to apply for promotions occurred after Plaintiff filed her Charge of Discrimination, and the latter
occurred after Plaintiff was given a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. Thus, as to those claims of failure
to promote, it appears that they have not been administratively exhausted. See Simmons v. Directory Distrib.
Assocs., No. 4:04-cv-674-CAS, 2005 WL 8176848, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2005) (“The decision not to
promote [i]s a discrete event completed at the time of the promotion.”). In other words, Plaintiff’s earlier
allegations of failure to promote are discrete events considered in her EEOC complaint, but the subsequent
attempts to apply for promotion were not necessarily encompassed by that complaint.
Case 4:25-cv-00727-RK Document 7 Filed 02/26/26 Page 3 of 3