Daley v. Yale New Haven Hospital

Filing 19

RULING re: AMENDED COMPLAINT. For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, the 18 Amended Complaint, as construed herein, is sufficient to proceed to process against defendant Yale-New Haven Hospital. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 9/13/2017. (Kaczmarek, S.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
------------------------------x
:
MONIQUE N. DALEY
:
:
v.
:
:
YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL
:
:
------------------------------x

Civ. No. 3:16CV00180(AWT)

September 13, 2017

RULING
Self-represented plaintiff Monique N. Daley (“plaintiff”)
filed a Complaint and Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma
Pauperis. [Docs. ##1, 2]. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis was granted, and plaintiff’s Complaint
was ordered dismissed without prejudice to the filing of an
Amended Complaint. [Docs. ##9, 17]. On August 5, 2016, plaintiff
timely filed an Amended Complaint. See Doc. #18. The Court has
reviewed the Amended Complaint and determines that the
allegations of the Amended Complaint, when supplemented by the
materials submitted by plaintiff in connection with her
Objection to the Recommended Ruling, are sufficient to permit
the claims to proceed to service of process on defendant.
1.

Incorporation of Attachments into Amended Complaint
When a Court evaluates a complaint to determine whether it

states a claim upon which relief may be granted, it considers,
of course, the allegations on the face of the complaint. The
Court also considers, however, “documents appended to the
~ 1 ~

complaint or incorporated in the complaint by reference, and
matters of which judicial notice may be taken.” Lunardini v.
Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 696 F. Supp. 2d 149, 155 (D.
Conn. 2010) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
The Court may also consider any document “upon which the
complaint solely relies and which is integral to the
complaint[.]” Roth v. Jennings, 489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir. 2007)
(internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
On June 17, 2016, plaintiff filed an Objection to the
Recommended Ruling, which provided a great deal of additional
information about her claims. See Doc. #12. In her later-filed
Amended Complaint, plaintiff refers at least three times to
“documents that were submitted to the [court] on 6-17-16.” Doc.
#18-5 at 1; see also Doc. #18-6 at 1. The Court finds that the
materials submitted to the Court on June 17, 2016, and docketed
as Doc. #12, are incorporated into and made a part of the
Amended Complaint.
2.

Construction of Plaintiff’s Claims
“In deference to the plaintiff’s pro se status, the court

construes [plaintiff’s] complaint liberally, interpreting it to
raise the strongest claims that it suggests.” Murphy v. JC
Penney Reg’l Catalog Ctr., 546 F. Supp. 2d 4, 6 (D. Conn. 2008).
Applying this standard, upon review of the Amended Complaint,
together with the materials incorporated into it, the Court
~ 2 ~

finds that the Amended Complaint is sufficient to proceed to
service of process as to a claim of discrimination under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) for a perceived
disability, and for retaliation for filing a complaint under the
ADA.
Plaintiff alleges that her employment was unlawfully
terminated on June 14, 2015. See Doc. #18-4 at 1. Plaintiff has
provided copies of materials submitted to the Connecticut
Commission on Human Rights (“CHRO”) in which she makes these
allegations. See Doc. #12 at 16-17; 21-24. Specifically, she
asserts that her employer “is insinuating” that she has a mental
illness, and discriminating on her on that basis. Doc. #12 at
23-24. She has provided copies of correspondence from her
employer asserting that her termination was based in part on her
“remarks to fictional people and conversations with yourself,”
Doc. #12 at 18, and a disciplinary action form stating that she
was heard “speaking out loud to yourself” or “talking to
yourself in the workplace,” Doc. #12 at 36. The materials
provided contain a number of references to similar concerns. The
Court construes the Amended Complaint to assert two claims: (1)
Discrimination on the basis of a perceived disability under the
ADA, and (2) Retaliation under the ADA.

~ 3 ~

3.

Initial Review of Amended Complaint
The Court has reviewed the Amended Complaint under the

standards set forth in 28 U.S.C. §1915(e). The Court finds that
the allegations of the Amended Complaint, as construed herein,
are sufficient to proceed to service of process.
4.

Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that

plaintiff has alleged claims of discrimination on the basis of a
perceived disability under the ADA, and retaliation under the
ADA, against defendant Yale-New Haven Hospital. The Amended
Complaint, as construed herein, is sufficient to proceed to
process against defendant Yale-New Haven Hospital.
SO ORDERED at New Haven, Connecticut, this 13th day of
September, 2017.
__
/s/
HON. SARAH A. L. MERRIAM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

~ 4 ~