Cornish v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP
Filing
18
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/10/2016. (klc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DORREATHA S. CORNISH,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civ. No. 13-1919-LPS
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
Defendant.
Dorreatha S. Cornish, Lincoln, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Charles Arthur McCauley, III, Esquire, Zarwin Baum DeVito Kaplan Schaer Toddy P.C. and Ivo
Becica, Esquire. Counsel for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
March 10, 2016
Wilmington, Delaware
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Dorreatha S. Cornish ("Plaintiff'') filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5,
alleging employment discrimination. (D.I. 2) She proceeds prose and was granted leave to proceed
in Jonna pauperis. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U .S.C. § 1331. Plailltiff filed an amended
complaint on September 4, 2014. (D.I. 8) Presently before the Court is Defendant Walmart Stores
East, LP's ("Defendant") motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint as well as
Plaintiff's opposition thereto. (D.I. 13, 14, 15, 17) For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant
in part, and deny in part, Defendant's motion.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that discrimination occurred on March 16, 2012, when her employment with
Defendant Wal-Mart was terminated. The Complaint alleges race (African American), age (45), and
marital status (single) discrimination. (D.I. 2) Attached to the original complaint is a notice of suit
rights from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") for EEOC Charge
No. 17C-2012-00515, dated August 15, 2013. (D.I. 2 Ex.) Plaintiff filed an amended complaint to
clarify her claims and attached to it her charge of discrimination. (D.I. 8 Ex.)
Defendant employed Plaintiff as a baker. Plailltiff alleges she was discriminated agaillst by
never becoming a department manager during her tenure with Defendant. The charge of
discrimination states that Plaintiff was told she was being discharged because she did not pass one of
six competencies. The charge states that Plaintiff was not previously advised of the requirement that
she pass competencies, and she was assured by her zone manager and her immediate supervisor that
she would not be fired. The charge states that Plaintiff's co-workers, who were female, white, and
married, had similar performance issues but were not discharged and instead were offered transfers
1
to other departments. Plaintiff was not offered a transfer. Finally, the charge states that Defendant
would not allow Plaintiff to change her availability to work earlier shifts, but it allowed younger
employees to work earlier shifts performing Plaintiffs job. (D.I. 8 Ex.)
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief as well as compensatory and punitive damages. She also
requests counsel.
III.
STANDARDS OF LAW
Evaluating a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires the
Court to accept as true all material allegations of the complaint. See Sprnill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218,
223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the
claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig.,
114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court may grant
such a motion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as
true, and viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Maio
v. Aetna, Inc., 221F.3d472, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted).
A well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and conclusions. See Ashcreft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombfy, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A plaintiff must plead
facts sufficient to show that a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City ef Shellry, _U.S._,
135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect statements of the
legal theory supporting the claim asserted. See id. at 346.
"To survive a motion to dismiss, a civil plaintiff must allege facts that 'raise a right to relief
above the speculative level on the assumption that the allegations in the complaint are true (even if
doubtful in fact).'" Victaulic Co. v. Tieman, 499 F.3d 227, 234 (3d Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell At!. Corp. v.
Twombfy, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible "when the plaintiff pleads factual
2
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). At bottom, "[t]he complaint must
state enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of [each]
necessary element" of a plaintiff's claim. Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc., 522 F.3d 315,
321 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The Court is not obligated to accept as true "bald assertions," Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist.,
132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted), "unsupported conclusions and
unwarranted inferences," Sch191lkill Ener;gy Res., Inc. v. Penn{)llvania Power & Light Co., 113 F.3d 405,
417 (3d Cir. 1997), or allegations that are "self-evidently false," Nami v. Fauver, 82 F.3d 63, 69 (3d
Cir. 1996). Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, her pleading is liberally construed and her Complaint,
"however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
IV.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that race, age, and marital status discrimination resulted in the termination of
her employment. Defendant moves for dismissal on the grounds that the facts as pled are
insufficient to state claims for relief. More particularly, Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot assert
claims of age and marital status discrimination under Title VIL In addition, it argues that Plaintiff
fails to allege facts sufficient to support claims of age and race discrimination.
Under Title VII, a claim of sex discrimination may be premised upon marital status, known
as "sex-plus" problem. See Bryant v. International Sch. Servs., 675 F.2d 562, 573 n.18 (3d Cir. 1982)
(noting that a sex-plus claim arises where "employer adds a criterion or factor for one sex (e.g.,
marital status), which is not added for the other sex"). Plaintiff's allegations fail to provide sufficient
facts to indicate she was treated less favorably than a male comparator, or evidence of any other
3
circumstances, such as impermissible stereotyping, that raise an inference of gender discrimination
under Title VII. See, e.g., Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107, 122 (2d Cir.
2004) ("[S]tereotyping of women as caregivers can by itself and without more be evidence of an
impermissible, sex-based motive."). Therefore, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss the
marital status discrimination claim. Plaintiff will be given leave to amend the claim.
Having reviewed .the race and age discrimination claims (including the charge of
discrimination) and, as the Court must, liberally construing the allegations contained therein, the
Court finds the allegations for both race and age 1 discrimination are sufficient to survive
Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state claims upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiff requests counsel in her prayer for relief. The Court will deny the request without
prejudice to renew and will consider such a request again upon the filing of a motion with facts
suppo1i:ing the request.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part Defendant's motion to
dismiss. (D.l. 13). Plaintiff will be given leave to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff's
request for counsel will be denied without prejudice to renew.
An appropriate Order will be entered.
1
Because Plaintiff proceeds pro se, she need not specifically refer to the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. ("ADEA''), in order to survive dismissal of the claim. See
Johnson, 135 S.Ct. at 346 (complaint may not dismissed for imperfect statements oflegal theory
supporting claim asserted).
4
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?