Neely v. Arkansas Department of Community Correction et al
ORDER partly granting and partly denying 7 Motion. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/13/2018. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
KERRY J. NEELY
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
SUSAN FRANCIS, Training Academy
Supervisor, in her Individual and
Official Capacity; SHEILA SHARP,
Director, in her Individual and Official
Capacity; and JOHN DOES I-IV
Neely has sued ADCC alleging employment discrimination.
She says that she was denied accommodation and terminated because
of her disability. ADCC and its administrators have moved to dismiss
her complaint. This Court confronted similar circumstances in Trickey
v. Selig, 2012 WL 3245956 (E.D. Ark. 8 Aug. 2012).
The damages claims, individual-capacity claims, and Title II
First, Title I did not validly abrogate state sovereign
immunity. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531
U.S. 356 (2001).
Neely's remedies are limited to reinstatement or
injunctive relief. Second, ADA rules apply to employers, not their
employees. Trickey, 2012 WL 3245956 at *2; Alsbrook v. City of Maumelle,
184 F.3d 999, 1005 n.8 (8th Cir. 1999). So Francis and Sharp aren't on
the hook here. Third, Title II applies to government outputs, not inputs;
it doesn't create a separate right of action for employment
discrimination. Trickey, 2012 WL 3245956 at *1; Zimmerman v. Oregon
Department of Justice, 170 F.3d 1169, 1173-75 (9th Cir. 1999). And, even
if it did, damages would still not be available. Alsbrook, 184 F.3d at 1010.
Neely's official-capacity Title I and due process claims
survive. Rule 8 requires a short and plain statement of the facts; and
Neely pleaded with admirable concision. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).
She says that she showed her doctor's
statement to ADCC before they denied her accommodation and fired
her. That's a claim under Title I of the ADA. And it's too early to say,
for certain, that the due process claim fails. That depends on how much
overlap there is. Alsbrook, 184 F.3d at 1010-11; Grey v. Wilburn, 270 F.3d
607, 610-11 (8th Cir. 2001). ADCC's motion is therefore denied with
prejudice as to the official-capacity Title I claim and without prejudice
as to the due process claim.
Motion, NQ 7, partly granted and partly denied.
D .P. Marshall Jr.
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?