Harris v. Potter's House Family and Children Treatment Center
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER that Plaintiff shall have up to and including October 31, 2013, to file an amended complaint with the information required by this Order. Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 9/26/2013. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
KAREN HARRIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:13-cv-2563-WSD
POTTER’S HOUSE FAMILY AND
CHILDREN TREATMENT
CENTER,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Karen Harris (“Plaintiff”), pro se, brings this Title VII action
against her former employer, Potter’s House Family and Treatment Center
(“Defendant”). Plaintiff sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis, which
Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand granted. This matter now is before the Court for
a frivolity determination.
I.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant unlawfully terminated her employment
because she was disabled. Plaintiff used a form Title VII complaint, executed on
August 2, 2013, on which she states that she was employed by Defendant in June
2009,1 and identifies a Ms. Perez as the human resources officer who allegedly
discriminated against Plaintiff. The entirety of Plaintiff’s factual narrative is as
follows: “I was told that I was being let go because my broken foot + kidney
transplant was too much trouble.”
Plaintiff’s form complaint indicates that she filed a charge with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), and that on May 2, 2013,
Plaintiff received a notice of a right-to-sue.2
II.
DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard for Frivolity Review
The Court reviews Plaintiff’s filings for frivolity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B). A court must dismiss a case filed in forma pauperis if at any time
the court determines the action is frivolous or malicious or that it fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii). “Failure
to state a claim under Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard
as dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).” Wilkerson
v. H&S, Inc., 366 F. App’x 49, 51 (11th Cir. 2010) (citing Mitchell v. Farcass, 112
1
Plaintiff does not identify when her employment began or the date on which she
was terminated.
2
The notice is attached to Plaintiff’s form complaint.
2
F.3d 1483, 1490 (11th Cir. 1997)). Under this standard, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility
when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). Review for
frivolousness, on the other hand, “‘accords judges not only the authority to dismiss
a claim based on an indisputably meritless legal theory, but also the unusual power
to pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims
whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.’” Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091,
1100 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
B. Analysis
Plaintiff filed this Title VII complaint alleging discrimination based on
medical disabilities. Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to discriminate
against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or
national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). “Title VII does not proscribe
disability discrimination, nor does it give protected status to disabled persons.”
3
Lewis v. Zilog, Inc., 908 F. Supp. 931, 953 n.11 (N.D. Ga. 1995); accord Clifton v.
Georgia Merit System, 478 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1361 (N.D. Ga. 2007) (“Because
disability discrimination is not covered by Title VII, the court dismisses the
plaintiff’s Title VII claim.”); Williamson v. Hartmann Luggage Co., 34 F. Supp.
2d 1056, 1063 (M.D. Tenn. 1998) (holding that “Title VII only covers claims
alleging discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and
not disability”); Snay v. United States Postal Serv., 31 F. Supp. 2d 92, 100 (N.D.
N.Y. 1998) (holding that “Title VII does not cover disability discrimination”). To
the extent Plaintiff’s complaint seeks to assert a claim under Title VII, it is required
to be dismissed.
It appears to the Court that Plaintiff intended to assert a claim under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., but
inadvertently used the incorrect form when filling out her complaint. The Court
liberally construes pro se pleadings, see Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d
1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998), and as a result, the Court exercises its discretion to
allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that seeks to assert a viable cause of
action under the ADA, including by alleging the factual detail required to assert a
claim for disability discrimination.
Plaintiff is hereby advised that her amended complaint, should she elect to
4
file one, must be filed on or before October 31, 2013. The complaint must include:
1) the dates of her employment by Defendant; 2) the nature of her job and her
duties; 3) a detailed account of the events leading up to her discharge from
Defendant’s employ; 4) a detailed description of the disabilities and medical
conditions from which Plaintiff alleges that she suffers; and 4) all factual bases for
Plaintiff’s belief that she was discharged because of those disabilities and medical
conditions. Failure to timely file an amended complaint with at least the
information required above will result in the dismissal of this action.
III.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including
October 31, 2013, to file an amended complaint with the information required by
this Order. Failure to comply will result in the dismissal of this action.
SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2013.
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?