Anderson v. Roberts McNutt Roofing and Waterproofing et al
ORDER: The city's motion to dismiss, 33 , is granted and the claims against it are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate the city as a defendant. Signed by Chief Judge Brian S. Miller on 3/13/2015. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WILLIE J. ANDERSON
CASE NO: 3:14CV00142 BSM
ROBERTS MCNUTT ROOFING
AND WATERPROOFING et al.
The City of Trumann’s unopposed motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 33] is granted and
plaintiff Willie Anderson’s amended complaint against it is dismissed with prejudice.
Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Anderson, the non-moving party,
the facts are as follows. Anderson was employed by Roberts McNutt Roofing and
Waterproofing, which contracted with the city to repair the roof on one of its buildings.
McNutt terminated Anderson during the time it was repairing the city’s roof and Anderson
timely filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . After receiving
a notice of dismissal and right to sue letter, Anderson filed this Title VII lawsuit against
McNutt and the city.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal when the plaintiff fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To meet the 12(b)(6) standard, a complaint
must allege sufficient facts to entitle the plaintiff to the relief sought. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, materials embraced by the
pleadings, as well as exhibits attached to the pleadings and matters of public record, may be
considered. Mills v. City of Grand Forks, 614 F.3d 495, 498 (8th Cir. 2010). Pro se civil
rights complaints are ordinarily accorded a liberal construction and are held to a less stringent
standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. Ailshire v. Darnell, 508 F.2d 526 (8th
The city’s motion to dismiss is granted because it was not Anderson’s employer.
Eaton v. WCA Waste Corp., 585 F. App’x 915 (8th Cir. 2014)(Only employers are liable
under Title VII). Even if the amended complaint is liberally construed, nothing indicates the
city was his employer. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) & (f)(defining employer and employee
under Title VII). The only reference to the city in Anderson’s amended complaint is the
allegation that “according to the mayor’s secretary, he was suspended” because of false
The city’s motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 33] is therefore granted and the claims against
it are dismissed with prejudice. The clerk is directed to terminate the city as a defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March 2015.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?