Negron v. City Solicitor et al
Filing
22
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Colm F. Connolly on 3/4/19. (sar)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CHRISTIAN F. NEGRON,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
V.
CITY OF WILMINGTON LAW
DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendants.
Civ. No. 17-1547-CFC
)
)
)
)
Christian F. Negron, Clifton, New Jersey, Prose Plaintiff.
Loren Holland, Esquire, City Solicitor's Office, City of Wilmington, Wilmington,
Delaware. Counsel for Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
March 4, 2019
Wilmington, Delaware
Cf._ 1 ~
CONNOLLY, U.S. District Judge:
Plaintiff Christian F. Negron, ("Plaintiff') who appears prtle and has paid the
filing fee, commenced this employment discrimination action on the basis of race,
national origin, disability, and perceived disability pursuant to the Title VII of the Civil
Rights of 1964, as amended ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
Act of 1967, as amended ("Rehab Act"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621
et seq., the Rehabilitation
et seq., and the Americans
with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101,
October 31, 2017.
(D.I. 6)
(D.I. 1)
He filed an amended complaint on December 27, 2017.
Together, they form the operative pleading.
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The Court has jurisdiction
Before the Court are Defendants' motion to dismiss and
motion to strike Plaintiff's sur-reply.
I.
et seq., on
(D.I. 9, 17).
The matters have been briefed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was a probationary firefighter in the Wilmington Fire Department's recruit
academy, scheduled from November 17, 2014 to February 7, 2015.
Named as
defendants are numerous individual employees as well as the City of Wilmington, its
Law Department, and its Fire Department.
Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination
by reason of race, national origin, disability and perceived disability occurred and
termination of employment on December 10, 2014.
(D.I. 1, 6).
Plaintiff filed a charge
of discrimination on March 11, 2015, and received a notice of suit rights dated August
21, 2017.
He commenced this action on October 31, 2017 seeking reinstatement,
backpay, compensatory damages, and other damages. 1
Plaintiff also requests counsel. However, he paid the filing fee and has not sought in
forma pauperis status. Therefore, his request will be denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(1) (The court may request an attorney to represent any person unable to
1
1
Defendants move for partial dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) on the
grounds the complaint fails to state a valid claim against the individual defendants, the
City of Wilmington Fire Department, and the City of Wilmington Legal Department.
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
In reviewing a motion to dismiss filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court
must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take them in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff.
See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).
Because
Plaintiff proceeds prose, his pleading is liberally construed and his Complaint, "however
inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings
drafted by lawyers." Erickson, 551 U.S. at 94. A court may consider the pleadings,
public record, orders, exhibits attached to the complaint, and documents incorporated
into the complaint by reference.
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makar Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S.
308, 322 (2007).
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion maybe granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the
complainant, a court concludes that those allegations "could not raise a claim of
entitlement to relief." Bell At/. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007).
"Though
'detailed factual allegations' are not required, a complaint must do more than simply
provide 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action."' Davis v. Abington Mem'I Hosp., 765 F.3d 236,241 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). The Court is "not required to credit bald assertions or legal
conclusions improperly alleged in the complaint." In re Rockefeller Ctr. Props., Inc.
afford counsel.).
2
Sec. Litig., 311 F.3d 198, 216 (3d Cir. 2002). A complaint may not be dismissed,
however, "for imperfect statement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted."
Johnson v. City of Shelby, 135 S. Ct. 346,346 (2014).
A complainant must plead facts sufficient to show that a claim has "substantive
plausibility."
Id. at 347. That plausibility must be found on the face of the complaint.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
"A claim has facial plausibility when the
[complainant] pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the [accused] is liable for the misconduct alleged."
Id.
Deciding
whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
Ill.
Id. at 679.
DISCUSSION
Defendants move for dismissal of the Title VII, Rehab Act, and ADA claims
raised against individual Defendants Deputy Chief Michael Donohue, Chief Anthony
Goode, Captain John Looney, Lieutenant Jeffrey Schall, City Solicitor, Bruno J.
Battaglia, Tanya Washington, Michael S. Purzycki, Charlotte Barnes, and Dr. Olusey I.
Senu-Oke.
Title VII, Rehab Act, and ADA do not provide for individual liability.
The law in
this area is clear, and has been for some time, that individual employees are not liable
under Title VII.
See Emerson v. Thiel College, 296 F.3d 184, 190 (3d Cir. 2002);
Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251, 268 (3d Cir. 2001 ).
In addition, the law is well-
established in the Third Circuit that parties cannot be held liable in their individual
capacities under the ADA or under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
See A. W v. Jersey
City Public Schools, 486 F.3d 791, 804 (3d Cir. 2007) ("Suits may be brought pursuant
3
to [the Rehabilitation Act] against recipients of federal assistance, but not against
individuals."); Koslow v. Pennsylvania, 302 F.3d 161, 178 (3d Cir. 2002) (no individual
liability under the ADA).
Accordingly, the Court will grant Defendants' motion to
dismiss Deputy Chief Michael Donohue, Chief Anthony Goode, Captain John Looney,
Lieutenant Jeffrey Schall, City Solicitor, Bruno J. Battaglia, Tanya Washington, Michael
S. Purzycki, Charlotte Barnes, and Dr. Olusey I. Senu-Oke as defendants.
Defendants also move to dismiss the City of Wilmington Fire Department and the
City of Wilmington Law Department on the basis that the proper party is the City of
Wilmington which is a named defendant. Defendants note that the City of Wilmington
Fire Department and the City of Wilmington Law Department are simply departments
within the City of Wilmington and, therefore, they may not be sued as separate entities.
The Court agrees.
Numerous cases have held that a municipal department such as a police
department or a fire department is not a separate legal entity that can be sued apart
from the municipality.
See e.g., Boyd v. Wilmington Police Dep't, 439 F. Supp. 2d 343,
345 n.3 (D. Del. 2006) (citing cases for stating that the Wilmington Police Department
may not be sued as a separate entity); see also Hussein v. New Jersey, 403 F. App'x
712 (3d Cir. 2010) (under New Jersey law, municipal police department was not entity
separate from municipality and not proper party defendant in city resident's § 1983
action); Regalbuto v. City of Philadelphia, 937 F. Supp. 374, 377 (E.D. Pa. 1995) (City
of Philadelphia police and fire departments are not separate legal entities which may be
sued).
Accordingly, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss the Fire Department and
4
Law Department as defendants in this action.
The Court will deny as moot Defendants'
motion to strike Plaintiff's sur-reply.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, the Court will:
(1) grant Defendants' motion
to dismiss (D.I. 9); and (2) deny as moot Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's sur-reply
(D. I. 17).
An appropriate order will be entered.
5
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?