The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated a district court's dismissal of a pro se employment discrimination lawsuit against Target Corporation, ordering the case back to the trial court for further proceedings. The February 3, 2026 decision in *Marquitta Regaolo v. Target Corp* represents a procedural victory for the plaintiff who sued her former employer without legal representation.
Marquitta Regaolo filed her civil complaint pro se in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Her complaint raised claims of race and disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment against her former employer, Target Corporation. Regaolo also filed a motion requesting the court appoint counsel to represent her in the case.
Target Corporation responded by filing a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Regaolo had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The procedural requirements of the district court's Local Civil Rules required Regaolo to file a brief in opposition to Target's motion to dismiss. However, Regaolo did not file the required opposition brief.
District Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro granted Target's motion to dismiss based solely on Regaolo's failure to file an opposition brief, as required by Rule 7.1(c) of the District Court's Local Civil Rules. The district court dismissed the case without providing notice to Regaolo about this procedural deficiency or giving her an opportunity to cure the filing failure.
On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals consisting of Circuit Judges Matey, Montgomery-Reeves, and Nygaard reviewed the district court's dismissal. The appeals court issued a brief per curiam opinion on February 3, 2026, finding that the district court had erred in its handling of the case.
The Third Circuit's decision to vacate and remand suggests the appeals court found problems with how the district court processed Regaolo's pro se complaint. While the opinion itself was not precedential under the court's Internal Operating Procedures, the ruling provides Regaolo with a second opportunity to pursue her employment discrimination claims against Target.
The case highlights ongoing challenges faced by pro se litigants in federal court, particularly in employment discrimination cases. Pro se plaintiffs often struggle to navigate complex procedural requirements and local court rules without legal representation. Federal courts have recognized the need to provide some accommodation for self-represented litigants, especially in civil rights cases where attorney representation may be difficult to obtain.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The law also protects employees from retaliation for opposing discriminatory practices or participating in discrimination investigations. Hostile work environment claims under Title VII require showing that discriminatory conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment.
Disability discrimination claims in employment typically fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act rather than Title VII, though Regaolo's complaint appears to have raised both types of claims against Target. Employment discrimination cases often involve complex factual and legal issues that can be challenging for pro se litigants to present effectively.
The Third Circuit's decision to remand the case means the district court will need to reconsider Regaolo's complaint and Target's motion to dismiss. The appeals court's action suggests that dismissing the case solely for failure to file an opposition brief, without notice or opportunity to cure, was inappropriate under the circumstances.
Target Corporation, one of the nation's largest retailers, regularly faces employment-related litigation across its thousands of store locations. The company has established policies and procedures for handling discrimination complaints, though individual cases often turn on specific factual circumstances and workplace interactions.
For Regaolo, the Third Circuit's decision provides an opportunity to continue pursuing her claims against her former employer. However, she will still need to navigate the procedural requirements of federal court and present sufficient factual allegations to survive Target's motion to dismiss on the merits.
The case also illustrates the importance of procedural compliance in federal litigation, even for pro se plaintiffs. While courts may provide some flexibility for self-represented litigants, they still must follow basic filing requirements and court rules to maintain their cases.
Moving forward, the district court will need to address both Regaolo's motion for appointment of counsel and Target's motion to dismiss. The court may need to provide clearer guidance to Regaolo about procedural requirements while ensuring that her substantive claims receive appropriate consideration under applicable employment discrimination law.
The remand order means the case will return to Judge Quinones Alejandro's docket in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where both parties will have another opportunity to present their arguments about the viability of Regaolo's employment discrimination claims against Target Corporation.