Welcher v. Davis Nursing Association et al
ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss of deft Louise King. Signed by Judge William R. Wilson, Jr on 12/15/09. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JOYCE R. WELCHER V. 5:09CV00304-WRW PLAINTIFF
DAVIS NURSING ASSOCIATION d/b/a DAVIS LIFE CARE CENTER; LOUISE KING; and BENITA PRIDGEON ORDER
Pending is Defendant Louise King's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 3). Plaintiff has responded.1 As set out below, Defendant Louise King's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Defendant Louise King is the Director of Nurses for Defendant Davis Life Care Center.2 Plaintiff was an employee of Davis Life Care Center.3 On September, 25, 2009, Plaintiff filed the Complaint in this action.4 The Complaint generally alleges claims for hostile work environment, retaliation, and disability discrimination.5 Defendant Louise King requests I dismiss any claims against her in her individual capacity under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act6 or the Americans with Disabilities Act7 ("ADA"). II. DISCUSSION
Doc. No. 7. Doc. No. 2. Id Doc. No. 1. Id. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) 1
2 3 4 5 6
In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, I must "accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint, and review the complaint to determine whether its allegations show that the pleader is entitled to relief."8 All reasonable inferences from the complaint must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.9 A complaint need only contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."10 Although it is unclear from the Complaint whether Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim under Title VII for alleged retaliation and a claim under the ADA for alleged disability discrimination, the individual Defendant, Louise King, is not an employer as defined under either of those two acts.11 Accordingly, to the extent Plaintiff raises claims against Defendant Louise King in her individual capacity under these acts, they are DISMISSED. CONCLUSION Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law above, Defendant Louise King's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 15th day of December, 2009. /s/Wm. R. Wilson, Jr. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008). Crumpley-Patterson v. Trinity Lutheran Hosp., 388 F.3d 588, 590 (8th Cir. 2004). Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)).
See Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Cmty. Sch. Dist., 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1997) (holding that the Eighth Circuit "has squarely held that supervisors may not be held individually liable under Title VII"); and Morrow v. City of Jacksonville, 941 F. Supp. 816, 819-20 (E.D. Ark. 1996) (supervisors may not be held individually liable under ADA). 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?