Neely v. Arkansas Department of Community Correction et al

Filing 15

ORDER partly granting and partly denying 7 Motion. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 2/13/2018. (jak)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION KERRY J. NEELY v. PLAINTIFF No. 3:17-cv-282-DPM ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION; 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 DEFENDANTS ORDER 1. 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). 2. The damages claims, individual-capacity claims, and Title II claims fail. 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. 3. 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. So Ordered. v D .P. Marshall Jr. United States District Judge -2-

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?