PLUMMER v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

Filing 19

ORDER granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 12/11/2018 (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
MIRCHELLE T. PLUMMER,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
COLUMBUS, GEORGIA,

*

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-32 (CDL)

*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Mirchelle T. Plummer claims that her employer, the Housing
Authority of Columbus, discriminated against her because of her
race, sex, religion, age, and disability.
that

the

Housing

Authority

complaining of discrimination.

She further asserts

retaliated

against

her

for

The Housing Authority previously

moved to dismiss this action in its entirety for failure to
state a claim.

The Court dismissed a number of Plummer’s claims

because they failed as a matter of law.

Order on Mot. to

Dismiss 5-9 (July 20, 2018), ECF No. 13.

The only remaining

claims

were

Plummer’s

claims

under

42

U.S.C. § 1981

and

the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 to
12117

(“ADA”).

Plummer’s

original

Complaint

did

not

allege

enough facts to state a claim under the ADA or § 1981, but the
Court gave Plummer an opportunity to amend her Complaint to
provide

additional

factual

allegations

in

support

of

these

claims.

As discussed below, Plummer’s Amended Complaint does

not cure the defects in her original Complaint, and the Housing
Authority’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is granted.
I.

ADA Claims
The Court previously concluded that Plummer had not alleged

enough facts to suggest that she had a disability within the
meaning of the ADA.
stated:

“If

Order on Mot. to Dismiss 10-11.

Plummer

intends

to

assert

a

The Court
disability

discrimination claim based on an adverse employment action that
was

taken

because

of

her

disability,

she

shall

amend

her

Complaint to add facts supporting such a claim, including facts
regarding

her

disability

and

the

specific

adverse

employment

actions she contends were taken because of her disability.”
at 11.

Id.

Like her original Complaint, Plummer’s Amended Complaint

summarily alleges that she had a disability, but it alleges no
facts regarding the alleged disability—nothing from which the
Court can tell that Plummer had a physical or mental impairment
that substantially limited one or more major life activities.

It

also alleges no specific facts regarding adverse employment actions
that were taken because of her disability.

Thus, Plummer’s Amended

Complaint fails to state a claim of disability discrimination.

Plummer
accommodate

likewise
claim.

did

The

not

Court

cure

her

previously

ADA

stated:

failure

to

“If Plummer

intends to assert a disability discrimination claim based on a

2

failure to accommodate, she shall amend her Complaint to add facts
supporting such a claim, including facts regarding her disability
and the specific accommodations she requested that were denied.”

As discussed above, Plummer’s Amended Complaint does

Id. at 12.

not

allege

qualified

any

facts

individual

to
with

support
a

her

claim

that

disability.

she

Plummer’s

was

a

Amended

Complaint also does not have any factual allegations about the
specific accommodations she requested but was denied.

Her Amended

Complaint thus fails to state a failure to accommodate claim.

Plummer argues that she was subjected to a hostile work
environment because of a disability, and the Court previously
gave her permission “to add specific facts in support of her
hostile work environment claim.”

Id. at 13.

Again, Plummer did

not allege any facts to support her claim that she was a qualified
person with a disability.
regarding

the

alleged

Nor did she add any specific facts

hostile

work

environment.

Her

Amended

Complaint thus fails to state a hostile work environment claim.

Finally, Plummer asserts that she was retaliated against
for

complaining

original
because

Complaint
it

[did]

of

disability

failed
not

discrimination.

“to

state

clearly

state

a

claim

what

for

adverse

Plummer’s
retaliation
employment

actions she suffered or how those adverse employment actions
[were] causally related to specific protected activity.”
14.

Id. at

The Court stated: “Plummer may amend her Complaint to add

3

facts

in

support

of

her

retaliation

claims.”

Id.

at

14.

Plummer’s Amended Complaint does not contain any specific facts
regarding what adverse employment actions she suffered or how
those

adverse

employment

protected activity.

actions

were

causally

related

to

Her Amended Complaint thus fails to state a

retaliation claim.
II.

Section 1981 Claims
The Court previously concluded that Plummer had not alleged

enough facts to support a racial discrimination or retaliation
claim

under

Plaintiff
claims

§ 1981.

intends

under

additional

§

to

1981,

facts

in

Id.

at

14-15.

pursue
she

Court

discrimination

may

support

The

amend

of

her

these

stated:

and

retaliation

Complaint

claims.”

“If

to

Id.

allege
at

15.

Plummer’s Amended Complaint contains no new facts in support of
her § 1981 claims.

Plummer’s Amended Complaint fails to state a

§ 1981 claim.
CONCLUSION
The Court told Plummer exactly why her original Complaint
failed to state a claim and gave her an opportunity to cure the
defects.

She failed to do so.

The Housing Authority’s Motion

to Dismiss (ECF No. 17) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 11th day of December, 2018.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

4