SZTANDERA v. AAR AIRCRAFT SERVICES
Filing
14
ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS: For the reasons set forth above, AAR's motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 12) is GRANTED; however, no final judgment will enter at this time in order to give Sztandera an opportunity to file an amended co mplaint that corrects the deficiencies in the current complaint. If Sztandera wishes to continue with this suit, he shall file an amended complaint within 28 days from the date of this order ***SEE ENTRY FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION***. Signed by Judge William T. Lawrence on 12/10/2014. Copy sent via US Mail. (DW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
ZBIGNIEW SZTANDERA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
AAR AIRCRAFT SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) CAUSE NO. 1:14-cv-889-WTL-TAB
)
)
)
)
ENTRY ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
This cause is before the Court on the Defendant’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 12). The
Plaintiff has not responded to the motion, and the time for doing so has passed. The Court, being
duly advised, GRANTS the motion for the following reasons.
I.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
In reviewing the Defendant’s motion to dismiss it came to the Court’s attention that the
Plaintiff’s address listed on the Docket is incorrect. The Docket currently lists the Plaintiff’s
address as 1311 W. 75th Court #6; however, the correct address is 1311 W. 75th Court #G. See
Plaintiff’s Complaint, dkt. no. 5, at 4, 10, 13. The Court surmises that this clerical error resulted
from the Plaintiff’s own handwriting. See dkt. no. 5 at 1. While the Court and the Defendant
have mailed filings to the Plaintiff at the incorrect address, the Plaintiff appears to have received
the mail, see, e.g., dkt. no. 5 (Plaintiff responding to the Court’s Entry, dkt. no. 4, that was
mailed to the incorrect address); moreover, the Court has not had any mail returned to it as
undeliverable. Nevertheless, the Clerk is hereby directed to change the Plaintiff’s address
on the Docket as follows:
Zbigniew Sztandera
1311 W. 75th Court #G
Indianapolis, IN 46260
The Defendant should also change the Plaintiff’s address in its records to ensure proper
delivery of filings.
II.
APPLICABLE STANDARD
AAR Aircraft Services, Inc. (“AAR”) moves to dismiss Plaintiff Zbigniew Sztandera’s
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the Complaint fails
to state a claim for which relief can be granted. In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court
“must accept all well pled facts as true and draw all permissible inferences in favor of the
plaintiff.” Agnew v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 683 F.3d 328, 334 (7th Cir. 2012). For a
claim to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, it must provide the defendant
with “fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Brooks v. Ross,
578 F.3d 574, 581 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007))
(omission in original). A complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Agnew, 683 F.3d at 334 (citations omitted). A
complaint’s factual allegations are plausible if they “raise the right to relief above the speculative
level.” Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007).
However, “the pleading standards for pro se plaintiffs are considerably relaxed.” Luevano
v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 722 F.3d 1014, 1027 (7th Cir. 2013). Complaints drafted by pro se
litigants are construed liberally and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by
lawyers. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751 (7th Cir. 2011).
III.
BACKGROUND
The facts as alleged in Sztandera’s Complaint are as follow. In December 2010,
Sztandera was hired by AAR. On March 9, 2012, Sztandera was injured at work. AAR
2
accommodated Sztandera by temporarily restricting him to light duty. On October 15, 2012, Dr.
John McLimore, discharged Sztandera from his care with certain permanent restrictions. When
AAR was informed of these permanent restrictions, it terminated Sztandera’s employment
effective October 19, 2012, informing Sztandera that it was unable to accommodate his now
permanent restrictions. Sztandera filed a complaint with the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and received his right to sue letter. He filed his Complaint in this
Court on June 2, 2014, alleging that he has been discriminated against in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
IV.
DISCUSSION
AAR moves to dismiss Sztandera’s Complaint because he “fails to allege that he is
qualified to perform the essential functions of his position with or without accommodation.”
Def.’s Br. at 3. In order to state a claim for relief pursuant to the ADA, Sztandera must allege
“1) that []he is disabled; 2) that []he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential functions of
the job with or without reasonable accommodation; and 3) that the employer took an adverse job
action against [him] because of [his] disability or failed to make a reasonable accommodation.”
Winsley v. Cook Cnty., 563 F.3d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
After reviewing Sztandera’s Complaint, the Court agrees with AAR that Sztandera has failed to
allege that despite his permanent restrictions, he could still perform the essential functions of his
job with or without an accommodation. See dkt. no. 5 at 3 and 4. Thus, Sztandera’s Complaint
fails to state a plausible ADA claim, and AAR’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED on this basis.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, AAR’s motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 12) is GRANTED;
however, no final judgment will enter at this time in order to give Sztandera an opportunity to
3
file an amended complaint that corrects the deficiencies in the current complaint. See Barry
Aviation, Inc. v. Land O’Lakes Mun. Airport Comm’n, 377 F.3d 682, 687 (7th Cir. 2004) (“The
better practice is to allow at least one amendment regardless of how unpromising the initial
pleading appears because except in unusual circumstances it is unlikely that the court will be
able to determine conclusively on the face of a defective pleading whether plaintiff actually can
state a claim.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). If Sztandera wishes to continue with
this suit, he shall file an amended complaint within 28 days from the date of this order.
That complaint shall set forth facts sufficient to explain the basis for the claim he wishes to
pursue, consistent with the Court’s discussion above. Should he pursue further action, the
Court encourages Sztandera to seek the assistance of counsel. The failure to file a timely
amended complaint will result in final judgment being entered against Sztandera in this
case.
SO ORDERED: 12/10/14
_______________________________
Hon. William T. Lawrence, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Copy by United States Mail to:
ZBIGNIEW SZTANDERA
1311 W. 75TH COURT #G
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46260
Copies to all counsel of record via electronic notification
4
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?