The attorney representing a former Scotland Neck police officer suing the town for racial discrimination says his client has sufficiently pleaded factual allegations to support his claims of discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful discharging.

Charlotte Attorney Chance D. Lynch filed the memorandum to the town’s motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit on behalf of Marcus Morris on Tuesday. The memo says the town’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit should be denied.

Lynch argues in the document that Morris properly alleged racial discrimination and retaliation and that he adequately pleaded that the town is an employer having consistently employed at least 15 or more employees.

Lynch also wrote that Morris contends he properly filed a claim for wrongful termination, supported by the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices Act arguing that his termination was racially motivated and violated public policy. He stated the town consistently employed 15 or more employees, which is relevant for wrongful termination claims.

The attorney for the town argued in a motion to dismiss filed in March that a plaintiff must do more than simply plead facts that hint at the sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. “The court does not credit allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences.”

Lynch filed the complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, retaliation after complaining about discrimination, racial discrimination prohibited by applicable North Carolina law, and to provide appropriate relief to (the) plaintiff.”

The complaint says that the town subjected Morris, who is Black, “to an unlawful, discriminatory, and hostile work environment perpetuated by and through the town’s agents and employees. (The) plaintiff alleges that after he complained about discrimination, he was the subject of retaliation by agents of (the) defendant. Plaintiff further alleges that the discriminatory and hostile work environment created by agents of (the) defendant culminated in plaintiff's enduring emotional injuries and professional damages.”