SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CITATION: yassen28 v. Ridgeway National Guard, et al.,
2022 RSC 619
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
August 12, 2022
BETWEEN:
yassen28
Plaintiff
and
ConstantlyVerbal, bohbazinga, Ridgeway National Guard
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT ON MOTION TO DISMISS
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE KOALAMEDVEDEVA
I. Motion to Dismiss
[1] Defendants submitted a motion to dismiss for lack of standing on August 12,
2022.
[2] Defendants’ submissions to dismiss first cause of action rely on a factual
argument—that plaintiff has moderation records which justify defendants’ conduct.
[3] Plaintiff submits that factual arguments are inappropriate in a motion to dismiss.
I agree. In the review of a motion to dismiss, I must not resolve factual disputes.
[4] With respect to the dismissal of the second cause of action, defendants submit
that plaintiff fails to allege concrete injury as the result of defendants’ conduct.
[5] Plaintiff submits that the unlawful denial of employment is an injury. I agree.
Plaintiffs do not have high bars when alleging injury. Plaintiff has alleged sufficient
facts to constitute some “identifiable trifle” (Bowman v. Wilson, 672 F. 2d 1145, 1151
(3d Cir. 1982)) to have standing to pursue this action.
[6] With respect to the dismissal of the third cause of action, defendants submit that
plaintiff is not entitled to a claim under s. 2.1(a) of the Civil Claims Act to claim relief.
The grounds for the dismissal of this cause of action appears to be failure to state a
claim rather than lack of standing.
[7] s. 2.1(a) of the Civil Claims Act provides:
“Any policy, order, procedure, or directive that impedes on an individuals
rights, immunities, or privileges secured by law, charter, or the constitution
shall be subject to the injunctive relief of a permanent restraining order against
the government prohibiting them from enacting this policy, order, procedure,
or directive; and injunctive relief reversing any harm done.
(i) Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they received concrete, non-
hypothetical harm from the policy, order, procedure, or directive.
(ii) The courts may subpoena any sensitive policy, procedure, order, or
directive that relates to the issue.”
[8] Defendants concede that plaintiff has a “statutory privilege and rights to be free
from unfair hiring practices” but argue instead that none of defendants’ policies, orders,
procedures, or directives has impeded plaintiff’s rights.
[9] In my view, hiring practices and background check procedures undoubtably fall
into the scope of review described in s. 2.1(a) of the Civil Claims Act. I also believe
plaintiff has plead enough facts which, if true, shows concrete and non-hypothetical
injury traceable to the defendants’ policies, orders, procedures, or directives. If the facts
alleged are true, I would be satisfied that plaintiff’s rights, immunities, or privileges
secured by law were violated; defendants concede that plaintiff has a “statutory
privilege…to be free from unfair hiring practices”. Finally, if the facts alleged are true,
I would be satisfied that plaintiff is entitled to relief under s. 2.1(a) of the Civil Claims
Act.
II. Declaratory Order
[10] For the reasons stated previously, unlawful denial of employment constitutes
an injury and persons unlawfully denied employment have standing to sue under s. 2.8
of the Administrative Procedure Act.
III. Answer
[11] Defendants are directed to file their Answer for the facts alleged and all three
causes of action in the Complaint on or before August 16, 2022.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway this 12th day of August, 2022.
“koalaMedvedeva”
Judge koalaMedvedeva
Counsel for the plaintiff yassen28: CIifford2 and turntable5000, Ridgeway.
Counsel for the defendants ConstantlyVerbal, bohbazinga, and Ridgeway
National Guard: RyanJSyndicate, Ridgeway.
