Palazzolo v. Oakwood Hospital

Filing 30

ORDER Rejecting 26 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, and Denying 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Oakwood Hospital. Signed by District Judge John Corbett O'Meara. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WILLIAM PALAZZOLO,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 10-13146
v.
Hon. John Corbett O’Meara
OAKWOOD HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
__________________________/

ORDER REJECTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the court is Magistrate Judge Mona Majzoub’s January 3, 2012 report and
recommendation that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted. Plaintiff filed objections on
January 16, 2012, and an affidavit from Plaintiff on January 18, 2012. Defendant filed a
response to Plaintiff’s objections on January 24, 2012.
This Court “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or
specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). The Court “may accept, reject or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” Id.
The magistrate judge recommends that the court dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
seeks to have the complaint dismissed based upon the plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted. The court must “accept all the ... factual allegations as true and
construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff[ ].” Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551
F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting
all the material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Advocacy Org.
for Patients & Providers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 176 F.3d 315, 319 (6th Cir.1999) (internal
quotation marks omitted). “[E]ven though a complaint need not contain ‘detailed’ factual
allegations, its ‘factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative
level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true.’” Ass’n of Cleveland
Fire Fighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).
It is this court’s opinion that Plaintiff’s complaint meets this standard. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendant Oakwood Hospital failed to hire him as a nurse because of his disability
(substance abuse problem). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges the elements of an Americans with
Disabilities Act claim: that he is disabled as a result of his substance abuse problem, that
Defendant was aware of this problem, that he was qualified for the position, and he was not hired
because of his disability. See Hedrick v. W. Reserve Care Sys., 355 F.3d 444, 452 (6th Cir.
2004) (elements of ADA claim); Amended Compl. at ¶¶ 21-34. Plaintiff also alleges that
Defendant’s reason for failing to hire him was pretextual. See id. at ¶¶ 25-30.
The magistrate judge recommended dismissal because, although Plaintiff alleges he was
qualified because his nursing license was reinstated and he worked as a nurse at Harper Hospital,
he did not “allege additional facts to show that [he] was qualified to perform essential functions
of the telemetry job.” Report & Recommendation at 4-5. Plaintiff is not required to prove his
claim at this stage, however. Rather, he must simply allege, with reference to some factual
allegations, that he was qualified. Whether he was actually qualified, with reference to the

-2-

essential functions of the job, is a matter for summary judgment following discovery or the
finder of fact.
The magistrate judge also noted that Plaintiff was not qualified because he failed to
provide “the written documentation Defendant requested in order to complete his job
application.” Plaintiff contends that the information requested was already in his employment
file. According to Plaintiff, Defendant’s articulated reason that Plaintiff was not hired because
he failed to submit this documentation is pretextual. Again, Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient
to survive a motion to dismiss. Taking Plaintiff’s allegations as true, which the court must do at
this stage, Plaintiff has stated a claim under the ADA.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the January 3, 2012 report and
recommendation is REJECTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

s/John Corbett O’Meara
United States District Judge

Date: February 1, 2012

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record
on this date, February 1, 2012, using the ECF system.

s/William Barkholz
Case Manager

-3-