Mars v. Urban Trust Bank

Filing 39

OPINION AND ORDER denying 33 defendant's Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint with Prejudice. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 2/11/2015. (MAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
JACQUELINE R. MARS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:14-cv-54-FtM-29CM

URBAN TRUST BANK, a Florida
corporation,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint with Prejudice (Doc.
#33) filed on October 15, 2014.
Opposition

to

Defendant’s

Plaintiff filed a Response in

Motion

to

Dismiss

Third

Amended

Complaint (Doc. #34) on October 26, 2014.
On August 14, 2013, plaintiff Jacqueline Mars (plaintiff)
filed a five-count Complaint against her former employer, Urban
Trust Bank (defendant).

(Doc. #1.)

Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss (Doc. #11), and in response, plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint

asserting

claims

for:

(1)

disparate

treatment

in

violation of the Age Discrimination and Employment Act of 1967
(ADEA); (2) age discrimination in violation of the Florida Civil
Rights Act (FCRA); (3) retaliation in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII); (4) unlawful gender

discrimination in violation of Title VII; and (5) unlawful racial
discrimination in violation of Title VII (Doc. #12).

Defendant

filed a second motion to dismiss (Doc. #15), which the Court
granted.
because

The Amended Complaint was dismissed without prejudice
plaintiff

constructively

failed

to

discharged

or

plausibly
subjected

allege
to

any

that

she

was

discriminatory

action that caused a serious and material change in the terms,
conditions, or privileges of her employment.

(Doc. #22.)

Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on May 26, 2014,
asserting claims identical to those in the Amended Complaint.
(Doc. #23.)

Defendant responded to the Second Amended Complaint

on June 5, 2014, by filing another motion to dismiss.

(Doc. #24.)

The Court granted defendant’s motion for the same reasons set forth
in its previous Opinion and Order and provided plaintiff with one
more opportunity to amend.

(Doc. #30.)

Plaintiff took advantage

of the opportunity to amend and filed a Third Amended Complaint on
October 2, 2014.

(Doc. #32.)

Defendant argues that the Third Amended Complaint should be
dismissed because it is riddled with errors and fails to state a
plausible claim for relief.
Plaintiff

added

more

than

(Doc. #33.)
thirty

1The

The Court disagrees. 1

paragraphs

of

new

factual

applicable legal standards, as set forth in the Court’s
Opinion and Order dismissing plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, are
incorporated herein. (Doc. #22, pp. 3-6, 8.)

2

allegations to the Third Amended Complaint in order to cure the
deficiencies

in

her

prior

pleadings.

At

this

stage

of

the

proceedings, the Court finds that these allegations, accepted as
true,

are

sufficient

to

plausibly

state

a

claim

for

age

discrimination, gender discrimination, racial discrimination, and
retaliation.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint with
Prejudice (Doc. #33) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
February, 2015.

Copies:
Counsel of record

3

11th

day of