Cheatham v. Augusta-Richmond County Georgia
Filing
14
ORDER denying 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/09/2017. (thb)
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION
*
SANITA CHEATHAM,
*
*
Plaintiff,
*
CV
116-104
*
AUGUSTA-RICHMOND
*
COUNTY
*
GEORGIA,
*
Defendant.
ORDER
Presently
dismiss.
the
before
Plaintiff,
City
of
("FMLA")
the
Court
Sanita
Augusta,
is
Defendant's
Cheatham,
violated
the
alleges
Family
motion
that
Defendant,
Medical
and the Americans with Disabilities Act
to
Leave
("ADA")
Act
when it
took adverse action against her after she took leave to undergo
medically
argues
necessary
that
application
sufficient
Because
Eleventh
of
the
facts
Eleventh
municipalities,
facts
surgery.
to state
to
Amendment
FMLA
and
state
Amendment
and
Defendant's
because
a
sovereign
that
claim
does
Plaintiff
has
not
failed
dismiss
bars
to
under
the
apply
to
alleged
a plausible claim for relief,
Defendant's motion.
to
immunity
Plaintiff
plausible
immunity
motion
the
the
plead
ADA.
local
sufficient
Court DENIES
FACTS
Defendant
hired
Plaintiff
in
Officer at its 911 Call Center,
maintained
their
a
working
relationship
Defendant
that
Defendant
demoted
At
Shortly
would
need
Plaintiff
as
a
Communications
and for six years the parties
relationship.
soured.
she
2008
off
point,
however,
Plaintiff
after
time
and
some
informed
undergo
surgery,
to
reduced
her
pay.
Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant demoted her because she required time off
to
tend
to
multiple
her
days
Defendant
medical
issue.
off
between
she
had
knew
that the parties'
formal
write-up
Defendant's
nothing
about
in
claims
work
that
force
by
differs.
she
requested
2014
and
that
She
also
problem.
together lapsed without any
Defendant
Unsurprisingly,
claims
was
major
that
problems
reprimand to
demotion
from a
of
Defendant.
one write-up or
stemming
June
ongoing medical
Plaintiff s
that
medical
six years
Plaintiff's
least
claims
and
ongoing
reprimand
recollection
did issue at
also
or
March
an
alleges
She
related
change
in
it
and
knew
that
Plaintiff.
to
a
it
It
reduction
technology
that
lessened the need for Plaintiff's position.
STANDARD
"To
survive
sufficient
to
relief
a motion
factual matter,
that
is
to
U.S.
662,
678
(2009)
556
U.S.
544,
570
(2007)).
dismiss,
a
accepted as
plausible
556
OF REVIEW
on
its
(quoting
complaint
true,
to
face.'"
Bell
Applying
contain
^state
Ashcroft
Atl.
this
must
Corp.
standard
a
v.
v.
claim
Iqbal,
Twombly,
requires
a
two-part
the
test.
See
plaintiff
rather
than
whether
has
mere
those
relief.
Id.
id.
stated
legal
facts
at
at
679.
First,
specific
the
facts
conclusions.
might
plausibly
Court
asks
whether
supporting
Id.
give
a
Second,
rise
to
claim
it
a
asks
right
to
680.
The first prong of the inquiry requires that the plaintiff
plead
"factual
reasonable
content
inference
that
that
allows
the
the
court
defendant
misconduct alleged." Id. at 678.
is
to
draw
the
for
the
liable
While the Court must accept as
"true all of the allegations contained in a complaint," it must
not
"accept
as
true
allegation."
will
discovery."
facts
that
Once
from mere
and
the
Court
legal
to
allow the
id.
whether
relief."
states
a
it
at
plausible
at
claim
specific
facts
give
rise
relief
.
doors
allegations
"Determining
for
"bare
679.
factual
accept those
679.
factual
and
assert
Id.
plausibly
a
"unlock the
must
specific
must
they
Id.
to
misconduct.
the
as
conclusions
plaintiff
defendant's
separates
couched
plaintiff
The
conclusions,
"determine
complaint
the
conclusion
Generalized
not
See
"show"
entitlement
legal
Id.
allegations"
of
a
.
as true
to
an
whether
.
[is]
a
a
context specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw
on its judicial experience and common sense."
facts
they
cannot
be
merely
must
allow
the
plausible.
Id.
at
consistent
Court
678.
to
with the
infer
Thus,
that
facts
Id.
Well-pleaded
alleged misconduct;
such
which
misconduct
was
show
the
only
possibility of misconduct are not enough.
must
allege
facts
that
push
conceivable to plausible."
Finally,
while
a
claim
plaintiff
precision'
each element of a claim,
complaint
^contain
the
recovery
under
some
Inc.
Stephens,
v.
cover
does
fact'
all
either
every
683
(11th Cir.
"across
the
line
from
viable
Inc.,
or
elements
legal
500
have
to
or
"allege
allege
a
^with
it is still necessary that a
direct
material
not
element
inferential
necessary
theory.'"
F.3d
1276,
2007)(quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr.
678,
The complaint
Id. at 683.
^specific
respecting
to
the
Id.
allegations
to
Fin.
Sec.
1282-83
for Choice,
sustain
Assur.,
(11th
Inc.,
a
Cir.
253 F.3d
2001) ) .
DISCUSSION
A.
FMLA Claim
Defendant's
Supreme
Court's
Maryland,
132
first
argument
decision
S.Ct.
1327
in
for
dismissal
Coleman
(2012),
makes
asserts
Court
Appeals
of
it
immune from suits
for
Defendant argues that it, like the State,
by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
the
v.
money damages under the FMLA self-care provision.
of
that
Specifically,
is protected from suit
Defendant is mistaken.
Sovereign immunity is a principle of power.
It originates
from the idea in English common law that the Crown could not be
sued in its own courts without its consent.
U.S.
706,
715
(1999).
The
king
could not
Alden v.
be
Maine,
527
sued without his
consent because "all jurisdiction implies superiority of power,"
and the king was the supreme power.
Thus,
subject
specifically,
himself
to
himself
or,
more
only the king could
his
courts.
Id.
While
sovereign
immunity
in
American
jurisprudence
commonly connected with the Eleventh Amendment,
the
federal
structure
ratification.
Alden,
of
government
527 U.S.
its existence in
predates
at 713.
is
the
amendment's
In the founding era,
the
American people universally agreed that every State enjoyed the
privilege
federal
which
of
sovereign
government
were
to
be
was
States.
to
Id.
retained
at
limited
715.
and
the
713-14.
Because
enumerated
the
the
powers
expansive
and
the design of the Constitution
sovereign
Thus,
when
immunity of
the
people
the
several
ratified
the
they did so with the understanding that the States
their
immunity
as
design of the Constitution.
Merely
of
the States,
eliminate
at
Constitution,
one
Id.
exercised concurrently with
innumerate powers of
did nothing
immunity.
five
however,
this
Georgia,
2
years
419
under
the
federal
Id. at 714.
after
principle
U.S.
co-sovereigns
was
the
put
(1793),
Constitution's
to
the
the
test.
Supreme
ratification,
In
Court
Chisholm v.
declared
that
Article III authorized a private citizen of another state to sue
the state of Georgia without its consent.
with
a
vigor
commensurate
founding
generation.
Chisholm
decision,
The
the
to
day
the
independent
after
Georgia
The country responded
the
spirit
Court
Legislature
of
our
announced
the
passed
a
bill
''providing
decision
that
would
anyone
be
attempting
^guilty
without benefit of clergy,
720-21
(quoting
Federalist
however,
D.
Period
Id.
the Eleventh Amendment,
the
suit
United
in
law
States
or
shall
Constitution
p.196
near
(1997).
unanimity
and
in
Chisholm
suffer
in
Not
at
721.
death,
527 U.S. at
Congress:
to
be
less
The
outdone,
than
three
The States eventually ratified
which provided that:
shall
equity,
the United States
not
be
commenced
by Citizens
of
The
Eleventh
judicial
misread
power;
the
it
merely
Constitution.
American
historical
sovereign
Amendment,
people
or
another
evidence
informed
under
the
Eleventh Amendment confirmed,
immunity
as
728-29.
Thus,
Amendment
itself."
a
but
Id.
the
supporting
immunity
U.S.
Because
constitutional
to
prosecuted
however,
ratified
"The Judicial power
construed
or Subjects of any Foreign State."
the
and
the
voted on and proposed for ratification to the States the
Eleventh Amendment.
of
The
1789-1801,
with
felony
enforce
by being hanged.'" Alden,
Currie,
Congress,
months,
of
to
State,
Const,
did
the
of
against
redefine
Court
rapidity
of
Constitution's
federal
that
with
Amendment
it
which
and
the
retention
State's
of
design
rather than established,
principle."
one
any
or by Citizens
Supreme
the
to
amend. XI.
not
Eleventh
the
extend
Alden,
527
"[t]he
sovereign
U.S.
at
"sovereign immunity derives not from the Eleventh
from
at
the
728.
structure
of
the
original
Constitution
But
neither
structure
of
the
the
Eleventh
Amendment
Constitution
reject
nor
the
the
original
principle
that
sovereign may subject itself to suit by its own consent.
may
consent
to
suit
by
constitutional structure.
case
when
the
people
state
statutes
Alden,
ratified
527 U.S.
the
adopting the Fourteenth Amendment,
or
changes
at 755.
Fourteenth
a
States
to
our
Such was the
Amendment:
"[l]n
the people required the States
to surrender a portion of the sovereignty that had been preserved
to
them
by
the
original
Constitution,
so
that
Congress
may
authorize private suits against nonconsenting States pursuant to
its § 5 enforcement power."
Id. at 756.
Thus,
"[w]hen Congress
enacts appropriate legislation to enforce this Amendment,
interests
are
over
States
the
Constitution."
In
whether
paramount,
which
Id.
Coleman,
Congress
and
Congress
otherwise
would
may
be
assert
an
federal
authority
unauthorized
by
the
(internal citations omitted).
the
Supreme
exceeded
Court
its
answered
powers
the
under
the
question
of
Fourteenth
Amendment when it attempted to allow money damages suits against
states
under
1327.
The
the
Court
FMLA's
self-care
provision.
held that because the
132
S.
Ct.
at
self-care provision did
not "identify a pattern of constitutional violations and tailor
a
remedy
congruent
and
proportional
to
the
documented
violations," it could not properly "abrogate the States immunity
from suits for damages under § 5 [of the Fourteenth Amendment]."
Id.
at 1338.
Thus,
the Court
declared that
States are
immune
from
suits
provision.
for
Court
municipalities,
suit
under
money
Rather,
government.
369
not
hold,
the
FMLA's
self-care
that
counties,
however,
and lesser government
sovereign
356,
did
for
provision.
that
damages
Id.
The
from
money
damages
under
the
the Supreme Court has
immunity
Bd.
entities
does
of Trs.
(2001) (" [T]he
not
of Univ.
Eleventh
were
FMLA's
second
immunity
is
entities.
against
which
538
is
U.S.
important
that
The
a
it
bars
immunity
municipal
not
456,
limit
extend
of Ala,
to
v.
Amendment
an
suits
does
does
the
(2003)
not
States
State.");
to
other
Jinks
of
but
not
at 756
lesser
prosecuted
Richland
unlike
its
sovereign
governmental
("[M]unicipalities,
U.S.
extend
suits
v.
local
531
527 U.S.
against
extend
of
Garrett,
principle
or
self-care
units
the
not
corporation
arm of
466
to
immune
consistently declared
immunity to units of local government."); Alden,
("The
also
entity
County,
States,
do
not enjoy a constitutionally protected immunity from suit.").
This case is
a
local
no different.
government
and
not
an
Because the City of Augusta is
arm of
the
state,
it
does
enjoy the protections of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
is not protected from application of the FMLA.
not
Thus, it
Therefore,
the
Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss on this count.
B.
ADA Claim
Defendant's
provide
next
sufficient
argument
facts
to
is
allege
that
a
Plaintiff
plausible
failed
claim
to
that
Defendant
discriminated
Specifically,
against
Defendant
argues
her
that
sufficiently allege that she either 1)
disability or 2) had a disability.
42 U.S.C.
§ 12112(a)
under
the
Plaintiff
was
ADA.
fails
to
perceived to have a
The Court disagrees.
provides,
in relevant part,
that "[n]o
covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual
on
the
basis
advancement,
of
or
and
or
discharge
other
employment."
with
disability
A
essential
terms,
holds
"Disability"
of
is
" (A)
substantially limits
(B)
a
record
of
one
such
employees,
defined
action
regarded
as
having
this
or
mental
impairment
limits
activity."
42 U.S.C.
Similarly,
regulations
that
under
physical
or
or
impairment;
establishing
prohibited
perceived
as
is
and
is
42
such
one
"an
individual
can
of
who,
perform
position
that
§
the
such
12111(8).
impairment
that
life activities
(C)
42 U.S.C.
an
being
to
as
§ 12102 (1) (A)-(C) .
been
is
further
subjected
because
impairment
;
regarded
impairment"
"has
perceived
compensation,
U.S.C.
or
chapter
hiring,
privileges
mental
or more major
having such an impairment . . . ."
"[B]eing
employee
employment
physical
an
the
accommodation,
desires."
a
to
individual"
the
or
regard
conditions,
reasonable
functions
individual
of
"qualified
without
in
of
whether
limit
a
or
an
actual
an
to
or
not
major
the
life
§ 12102(3)(A).
29 C.F.R. § 1630.4(a)(1), which is a part of the
published pursuant
to 42 U.S.C.
§
12112,
provides
that
"[i]t is unlawful for a covered entity to discriminate on
the basis of disability against a qualified individual in regard
to
.
.
. demotion,
It
defines
transfer,
"disability"
in
layoff
[or]
accordance
termination
with
§
.
12102,
.
.
."
but
it
further states that an individual may make a claim based on any
or all of the disability prongs listed in § 12102.
person
does
not
have
to
show
an
actual
substantially limits a major life activity if
under the claim that her employer has
disability.
29 C.F.R.
Moreover,
impairment
a
that
she is proceeding
regarded her as
having a
§ 1630.2(g)(3).
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has no claim because she did
not
allege
that
argument fails,
she
however,
had
an
actual
disability.
because Plaintiff did not have to allege
a disability to make a claim under the ADA.
a physical or mental impairment,
she
was
regarded
as
having
employer regarded her as
an
Plaintiff may allege
a record of impairment,
impairment.
If
having an impairment,
to provide proof of her disability.
Here,
Defendant
regarded
demoted
her
Defendant's
because
it
she
or that
claims
her
she does not have
Plaintiff alleges that
her
as
having
an
impairment.
Plaintiff provides specific facts about her medical
issues,
that
she
issues,
and that Defendant took an adverse employment action very
had to
take
time
off
to
address
soon after learning of her need for time off.
those medical
These allegations
are sufficient to state a plausible claim that Defendant regarded
Plaintiff as having an impairment and discriminated against her
10
because of her perceived impairment.
Thus,
Plaintiff has stated
a plausible claim under the ADA.
Moreover,
plausible
Plaintiff has
claim
for
being regarded as
which
determining
§
limits'
that
limit
it
one
"that
restrict,
the
in
to
impairment
is
not
be
that
meant
^substantially
to
or
disability."
29
strictly
C.F.R.
include "reaching,
. the operation of
of
the
immune
life
activities."
When
"the
term
in
favor
be
limits'
a
to
create
major
expansive
standard";
a
or
life
major
and
severely
activity
that
life
"whether
activity
an
should
"the term
a
^major'
demanding
shall not
standard
for
"Major life activities
. . . , interacting with others,
special
normal cell growth . . . ."
^substantially
of
a major bodily function,
system,
C.F.R.
When determining what "major
§ 1630.2(i)(2).
lifting,
29
demanding
a
limiting";
life activities" have been impaired,
interpreted
impairment
must
significantly
not demand an extensive analysis."
be
an
claim of
impairment
from performing
substantially
her
a
the
broadly
prevent,
individual
to make
"substantially limits,"
Court
not
to
To have
or more major
the
facts
addition
disability,
construed
it
in
impairment.
impairment
be
"need
order
a
instructs
shall
coverage";
as
if the
1630.2(j)
impairment
having an
qualifies
"substantially
an
alleged sufficient
sense
. .
including function
organs
and
skin;
[and]
Id^ at § 1630.2 (1) (i)- (ii) .
When combined with the lenient factual standard required at
the
motion
to
dismiss
stage,
11
the
broad
definition
of
"substantially limits" gives
at
this
it.
a
stage
for
problem
litigation,
function"
as
and
normal
cell
under
the
Plaintiff
allegations
are
was
easily
crosses
it
sufficient
as
standard
a
set
Defendant's motion to dismiss
bodily
directly
substantial
forth
finds
that
this
claim
allow
which
major
cancer
of
amended
related,
a
Because
Court
to
of
days
first
cancer
qualifies
lenient
the
multiple
Her
operation
growth."
very
miss
recovery.
"the
growth,
Therefore,
to
surgery
cell
the
her
and
affecting
"normal
regulation.
further.
that
and
limitation
required
surgery,
alleges
qualify
affects
that
testing,
complaint
would
the
to cross
Plaintiff alleges that she had an impairment in the form of
medical
work
of
Plaintiff a very low bar
in
the
Plaintiff's
to
proceed
the ADA claim is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For
the
reasons
mentioned
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
ORDER ENTERED
January,
at
above,
(Doc.
Augusta,
the
Court
4).
Georgia,
this
/^^ day
2017.
HALL
^/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IERN
12
DENIES
DISTRICT
OF GEORGIA
of
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?