King v. HCA et al
Filing
35
OPINION AND ORDER granting 28 Defendants Kelli Steiner-Dawson and Bill Hawley's Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim. Defendants Kelli Steiner-Dawson and Bill Hawley are dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is dir ected to enter judgment accordingly and terminate these defendants. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order. If plaintiff chooses not to amend, the remaining defendant (HCA West Florida) must file an appropriate request for dismissal before this case can be closed. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 7/26/2018. (BLW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
LOREN D. KING, II,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No:
2:17-cv-583-FtM-99CM
KELLI STEINER-DAWSON, RN,
ICU Nurse Manager, HCA WEST
FLORIDA, and BILL HAWLEY,
CEO/President,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This
matter
comes
before
the
Court
on
Defendants
Kelli
Steiner-Dawson and Bill Hawley’s Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice
for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #28) filed on June 22, 2018.
Plaintiff pro se Loren D. King, II filed a Response in Opposition
(Doc. #34) on July 20, 2018.
For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is granted.
I.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a Complaint
must contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).
This obligation “requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not
do.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
(citation omitted).
To survive dismissal, the factual allegations
must be “plausible” and “must be enough to raise a right to relief
above the speculative level.”
Id. at 555.
See also Edwards v.
Prime Inc., 602 F.3d 1276, 1291 (11th Cir. 2010).
“more
than
an
accusation.”
unadorned,
Ashcroft
v.
This requires
the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
Iqbal,
556
U.S.
662,
678
(2009)
(citations omitted).
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the Court must
accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true and take
them in the light most favorable to plaintiff, Erickson v. Pardus,
551 U.S. 89 (2007), but “[l]egal conclusions without adequate
factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth.”
v.
Berzain,
omitted).
654
F.3d
1148,
1153
(11th
Cir.
2011)
Mamani
(citations
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
consistent
with
a
facially plausible.”
“Factual allegations that are merely
defendant’s
liability
fall
short
of
being
Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333,
1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted).
Thus, the Court engages in a two-step approach: “When
there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume
their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise
to an entitlement to relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
- 2 -
II.
On October 20, 2017, plaintiff, a former nurse-employee of
Fawcett Memorial Hospital in Port Charlotte, Florida, filed this
employment discrimination case using a “form complaint” provided
to pro se litigants by the Court. 1
(Doc. #1.)
In the initial
Complaint, plaintiff cited federal question in the “basis of
jurisdiction” section and named four defendants: HCA, Fawcett
Memorial Hospital, Administrator, and Nurse Manager.
Prior
to
effecting
service
of
the
(Id.)
initial
Complaint,
plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint (Doc. #9) again using a form
complaint, naming HCA West Florida, Kelli Steiner-Dawson, RN ICU
Nurse Manager, and Bill Hawley, CEO/President, individually as
defendants.
Plaintiff
lists
Title
VII,
the
Americans
with
Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(ADEA), and the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA) as the basis for
his Amended Complaint.
(Id.)
In the “Statement of Claim” section of the Amended Complaint,
plaintiff
states
discriminated
in
against
five
lengthy
because
of
paragraphs
his
that
disability
2
he
and
was
no
1
Prior to filing the instant lawsuit, on November 11, 2015,
plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (EEOC No. 510-2016-00563), alleging
discrimination based on sex, age, and disability. Plaintiff received a
Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on July 24, 2017.
2
The Amended Complaint does not state what disability plaintiff
suffers from, only stating that he has “difficulties with maintaining
attention to details.” (Doc. #9, ¶ 2.)
- 3 -
accommodation was provided by defendants.
Each paragraph of the
Statement of Claim begins with a statement of the cause of action
plaintiff is attempting to bring, as follows:
1. Manger targeted and harassed employee (plaintiff)
forming an intimidating environment representative of
workplace violence.
2. Management
discriminated
disability.
against
my
(plaintiff’s)
3. Harassment leading to constructive discharge utilizing
underhanded
tactics
to
discriminate,
set-up
and
terminate vulnerable populations.
4. Breach of trust.
5. Age Discrimination.
(Doc. #9.)
Plaintiff believes he was targeted and harassed by
Steiner-Dawson,
a
nurse
manager,
who
“ambushed
urine
tested”
plaintiff, which tested positive for marijuana, resulting in his
termination.
Dawson’s
actions
“vengeful.”
Hawley
Plaintiff claims generally that defendant Steiner-
also
were
“discrimination,”
“sabotage,”
and
(Id., ¶¶ 1-4.) Plaintiff alleges that defendant
denied
him
due
process
and
that
he
allowed
for
defendant Steiner-Dawson’s actions to occur and thus was negligent
in his duties and obligations.
(Id., ¶¶ 1-2, 4.)
Plaintiff served the Amended Complaint on Steiner-Dawson and
Hawley, and they now move to dismiss, arguing that plaintiff’s
claims cannot be brought against individual defendants.
#28.)
(Doc.
It appears that HCA West Florida was served on June 5, 2018
- 4 -
via Hawley as an “appointed designee” (Doc. #23), but HCA West
Florida has not filed a response to the Amended Complaint and
defendants state in their Motion to Dismiss that the entity “HCA
West Florida” does not exist.
(Id., n.1.)
In Response to the Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff acknowledges
that the claims may not be used to sue individuals, but he wants
to reserve the right to sue them individually or combined in the
future.
(Doc. #34, p. 1.)
III.
A pleading drafted by a party proceeding unrepresented (pro
se) is held to a less stringent standard than one drafted by an
attorney, and the Court will construe the documents filed as a
complaint and amended complaint liberally.
Jones v. Fla. Parole
Comm’n, 787 F.3d 1105, 1107 (11th Cir. 2015).
Nevertheless, “a
pro se pleading must suggest (even if inartfully) that there is at
least some factual support for a claim; it is not enough just to
invoke
a
Construed
legal
theory
liberally,
devoid
of
plaintiff
any
factual
alleges
claims
basis.”
for
Id.
gender
discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment under
Title VII and the FCRA, as well as claims under the ADA and the
ADEA.
ADEA and FCRA
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
provides
that
“[i]t
shall
be
unlawful
- 5 -
for
an
employer”
to
“discriminate against any individual… because of such individual’s
age.”
29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).
Both Eleventh Circuit and Florida
case law are clear that there is only employer liability for an
ADEA claim and a FCRA claim. 3
Albra v. Avan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826,
830 (11th Cir. 2007); Mason v. Stallings, 83 F.3d 1007, 1009 (11th
Cir.
1996)
(“[T]he
‘agent’
language
was
included
to
ensure
respondeat superior liability of the employer for the acts of its
agents....”); Patterson v. Consumer Debt Mgmt. and Educ., Inc.,
975 So. 2d 1290, 1292 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
Title VII and FCRA
Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against
individuals with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment because of the individual’s race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1).
“Relief granted under Title VII is against the employer, not
individual employees whose actions would constitute a violation of
the Act.”
Smith v. Lomax, 45 F.3d 402, 403 n.4 (11th Cir. 1995)
(emphasis in original) (quoting Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d
764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991)); see also Rickman v. Precisionaire,
3 FCRA age discrimination claims are subject to the same analysis
as ADEA and Title VII claims. Cardelle v. Miami Beach Fraternal Order
of Police, 593 F. App’x 898, 901 (11th Cir. 2014); Zaben v. Air Prods.
& Chems., Inc., 129 F.3d 1453, 1455 n.2 (11th Cir. 1997); Valenzuela v.
GlobeGround N. Am., LLC, 18 So. 3d 17, 21 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). “Federal
case law interpreting Title VII and the ADEA applies to cases arising
under the FCRA.” City of Hollywood v. Hogan, 986 So. 2d 634, 641 (Fla.
4th DCA 2008).
- 6 -
Inc., 902 F. Supp. 232, 234 (M.D. Fla. 1995) (“although Congress
defined
‘employer’
to
include
‘agent’
this
does
not
impose
individual liability but only holds the employer accountable for
the acts of its individual agents.”).
“Individual capacity suits
under Title VII are simply inappropriate.”
Busby, 931 F.2d at
772.
ADA
In Mason v. Stallings, the Eleventh Circuit held that “[a]s
to individual liability, there is no sound reason to read the
Disabilities Act any differently than . . . Title VII and the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act.”
82 F.3d 1007, 1009 (11th Cir.
1996) (holding in a case of first impression for the Eleventh
Circuit that the ADA did not impose individual liability).
See
also Shotz v. City of Plantation, Fla., 344 F.3d 1161, 1172 (11th
Cir. 2003) (individual liability precluded for violation of ADA
anti-discrimination provision in employment); Pritchard v. So. Co.
Servs., 102 F.3d 1118, 1119 n.1 (11th Cir. 1996) (the plaintiff’s
“remedy for any discrimination she may have suffered on account of
her alleged disability lies against her employer, not individual
officers of her employer.”).
In conclusion, because Title VII, the FCRA, the ADA, and the
ADEA do not provide for individual liability, the claims against
Steiner-Dawson and Bill Hawley in their individual capacities are
dismissed with prejudice.
To the extent that plaintiff wishes to
- 7 -
sue his employer, plaintiff will be provided the opportunity to
file a “Second Amended Complaint” to identify the proper employerdefendant as it appears that HCA West Florida is not the proper
entity.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10, the
allegations should be set forth in separate numbered paragraphs,
“each
limited
circumstances.”
as
far
as
practicable
to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b).
a
single
set
of
Further, each claim
“founded on a separate transaction or occurrence” must be stated
in a separate “Count.”
Id.
If plaintiff chooses not to amend,
the remaining defendant (HCA West Florida) must file an appropriate
request for dismissal before this case can be closed.
If HCA West
Florida contends that it is not a proper defendant, it must file
a motion to that effect.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1.
Defendants Kelli Steiner-Dawson and Bill Hawley’s Motion
to Dismiss With Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. #28)
is GRANTED and defendants Kelli Steiner-Dawson and Bill Hawley are
dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment
accordingly and terminate these defendants.
2.
Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint within
FOURTEEN (14) DAYS of this Opinion and Order and in compliance
with the directives above.
- 8 -
DONE and ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this __26th__ day of
July, 2018.
Copies:
Plaintiff
Counsel of Record
- 9 -
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?