July 31, 2025|Franchise Frontlines
July 31, 2025 | U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado | Unpublished Recommendation
Executive Summary
In an unpublished recommendation, Magistrate Judge Timothy O’Hara advised granting in part and denying in part a motion to dismiss employment discrimination claims brought by a former soccer director alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The plaintiff alleged a series of race-based incidents involving players, other coaches, security personnel, and employees at a shared athletic facility. The court recommended dismissing all claims against three defendants—Impact Sports Performance LLC, Nisola-Roughriders Futbol Academy LLC, and an individual co-owner—because the plaintiff did not plausibly allege those entities employed him. The court concluded that only RoughRiders LLC, the entity alleged to have hired, supervised, and fired the plaintiff, could plausibly be his employer under Title VII or § 1981. The court recommended allowing the claims against RoughRiders LLC to proceed based solely on the allegations and the low pleading standard, noting that questions of severity, pervasiveness, and retaliatory intent are fact-intensive and inappropriate for resolution at the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Relevant Background
According to the plaintiff’s allegations, he partnered with one of the individual defendants in 2019, selling a portion of his soccer academy and agreeing to operate a youth soccer program at a multi-sport facility known as the Sport Stable. The plaintiff alleges that RoughRiders LLC served as the organizational home for the soccer program and supervised his role as Director of Soccer from January 2020 to April 2021. He contends that he regularly ran practices, organized teams, and oversaw player development, all under the control of RoughRiders LLC’s management. The plaintiff alleges that he reported to the entity’s leadership, including its director of operations and chief financial officer.
The complaint describes a series of alleged incidents beginning in 2020, including verbal harassment, threats, vandalism, and racially derogatory remarks by individuals both inside and outside the organization. The plaintiff alleges that a young man verbally harassed and threatened him in May 2020 and again in 2021; that a baseball coach affiliated with RoughRiders LLC allegedly used racially charged language and threatened him physically during a practice; that another coach allegedly threatened him with a baseball bat; that racial slurs were written on whiteboards used for team practices; and that facility security personnel allegedly interrupted his practices in ways the plaintiff believed were racially motivated. The plaintiff alleges he reported many of these incidents to RoughRiders LLC’s leadership and that those reports were met with indifference, downplaying, or assurances that no action would be taken.
The plaintiff further alleges he was told that seeking legal advice regarding harassment placed his job at risk. He asserts that RoughRiders LLC later announced the termination of the soccer program and then sent him an email stating that he was fired. The plaintiff alleges the termination occurred shortly after he complained of discriminatory treatment. The defendants dispute these allegations, contending the complaint is deficient and that several entities named in the lawsuit never employed the plaintiff at all.
Decision
The court recommended dismissing all claims against Impact Sports Performance LLC and Nisola-Roughriders Futbol Academy LLC because the plaintiff did not plausibly allege that those entities exercised the right to hire, fire, supervise, discipline, or otherwise control the terms and conditions of his employment. The court explained that conclusory statements that an entity is an “employer” are insufficient and emphasized that the complaint contained almost no factual allegations linking those entities to decisions about the plaintiff’s employment. The court also recommended dismissing the Title VII and § 1981 claims against the individual co-owner because Title VII does not impose individual liability and because the allegations did not plausibly support intentional discrimination under § 1981.
As to RoughRiders LLC, the court found the allegations sufficient at the pleading stage to infer that it may have served as the plaintiff’s employer. The court pointed to allegations that RoughRiders LLC hired the plaintiff, exercised control over the facility where he worked, supervised his duties, addressed his complaints, and ultimately terminated his employment. Because the plaintiff alleged that RoughRiders LLC’s officers received his reports of racial harassment, controlled access to the facility, and communicated the decision to end his employment, the court found the complaint stated enough to meet the “hybrid test” used to determine employer status under Title VII in the Tenth Circuit.
The court concluded the complaint plausibly alleged race discrimination under Title VII and § 1981 because it alleged that the plaintiff belonged to a protected class, suffered an adverse employment action, and experienced conduct that—if proven—could give rise to an inference of discrimination. The court emphasized that the plaintiff described multiple incidents of racially charged graffiti, threats, and differential treatment, and that third parties allegedly expressed concern about those incidents. While the defendants argued that the plaintiff failed to identify comparators, the court clarified that comparator evidence is not required at the pleading stage.
The court determined the complaint plausibly alleged a hostile work environment because the plaintiff described repeated incidents that spanned several months, allegedly interfered with his ability to conduct soccer practices, and included both verbal statements and physical intimidation. The court emphasized that hostile work environment determinations are fact-specific and typically unsuitable for resolution under Rule 12(b)(6).
Finally, the court recommended allowing the retaliation claim to proceed because the plaintiff alleged he reported race-based harassment, expressed concern about discriminatory treatment, and was later informed by a supervisor that his attempts to seek legal advice were the reason a co-owner allegedly wished to “push him out.” Those allegations, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, were sufficient to infer retaliatory motive at this early stage. The court therefore recommended denying the motion as to all claims against RoughRiders LLC while dismissing all other defendants with prejudice.
Looking Forward
This decision demonstrates how courts may scrutinize multi-entity organizational structures at the pleading stage and limit liability to the entity most clearly tied to hiring, supervision, and termination. For employers, this reinforces the value of carefully documenting which entity controls employment decisions and ensuring that operational affiliates or related businesses maintain clean separation where appropriate. The ruling also highlights that courts may allow discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims to proceed when plaintiffs allege detailed incidents, even if the employer disputes the underlying facts. As a result, employers should anticipate that early motions focused on pleading sufficiency often turn on the level of detail in the complaint rather than the strength of the employer’s defenses. The decision further illustrates how courts may treat reports of harassment and the organization’s response in assessing plausible claims, underscoring the importance of clear reporting processes, consistent follow-up, and documented action plans.
While the court’s analysis is tied closely to the allegations and procedural posture of this matter, employers in franchised or multi-entity environments may view the opinion as a reminder of how joint-employer and single-employer theories are evaluated and why clear delineation of employment responsibilities can reduce litigation exposure. Although RoughRiders LLC must continue to defend itself, the recommendation dismisses claims against three other defendants, reinforcing the principle that plaintiffs must plausibly allege employment relationships and intentional conduct before multiple entities or individuals may be held to answer under Title VII or § 1981.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create, and does not create, an attorney-client relationship or any other legal relationship. No statement herein constitutes legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or interpreted as such. This communication is for general informational purposes only and is not a substitute for legal counsel. Readers should not act or refrain from acting based on any information provided without seeking appropriate legal advice specific to their situation. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
