Johnson v. Maplewood-Richmond Heights School District

Filing 13

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 5 ], is granted. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is given 14 days from the date of this Opinion, Memorandum and Order to file an Amended Complaint. ( Response to Court due by 12/10/2013.). Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 11/26/2013. (CLK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
W. CHARLES JOHNSON.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MAPLEWOOD-RICHMOND
HEIGHTS SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:12CV2059 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc.
No. 5]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Facts and Background1
The Complaint
Count One: Employment Discrimination
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Plaintiff, an African-American male,
claims he was discriminated against due to his race, gender, disability, and was
retaliated against by Defendant, his employer. Plaintiff claims he is physically and
emotionally disabled with foot impairments and serious emotional trauma

1

The recitation of facts is taken from the allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and is set
out for the purposes of the pending motion only. The recitation in no way relieves the parties of
necessary proof any stated facts.

problems.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s employment discrimination acts include but
are not limited to Defendant’s failure to take corrective, curative and preventive
action after being put on Notice by Plaintiff that harassment was occurring and
eventual Termination from Plaintiff’s employment on April 11, 2012. The
Complaint further alleges that Plaintiff was the target of long term serial
harassment, including race, disability, gender and retaliation harassment by
administration, and his supervisor; an Administrator of Defendant both rebuked
and reprimanded Plaintiff in front of co-workers and students; Plaintiff had rave
reviews less than a year before Defendant fired Plaintiff; Defendant did not comply
with any kind of progressive discipline; Defendant intentionally replaced Plaintiff
with a white female with less experience than Plaintiff, but paid her more money;
Plaintiff’s supervisor put some sort of representation of a text message Plaintiff
sent to a former co-worker when they were both off duty into Plaintiff’s Personnel
Jacket without allowing Plaintiff to promptly know or to furnish Plaintiff the rights
to confront and cross-examine this entry; Plaintiff’s supervisor “got on” other
African-American males for work issues which appeared to be beyond their duties
with Defendant; Plaintiff’s supervisor harassed Plaintiff before he was medically
released and fired black males who worked under Plaintiff for alleged reasons that
-2-

make no sense; Plaintiff’s supervisor fired Plaintiff without taking any progressive
discipline, did not charge Plaintiff with anything and did not allow Plaintiff to
know any purported grounds. Plaintiff was not allowed to confront or crossexamine whatever was motivating Defendant. Defendant failed to take corrective,
curative and preventive action after being put on notice by Plaintiff of all of the
above.
Plaintiff alleges he adhered to the Rules listed in Defendant’s Employee
Handbook, but was fired, nonetheless. Plaintiff alleges that similarly situated
employees may have been disciplined but not fired for worse conduct.
Count Two: Denial of Accommodation under the ADA
Plaintiff alleges that he is an individual with disabilities, that he was able to
perform the essential functions of his employment but for the adverse employment
actions, discrimination and illegal harassment he encountered. He further claims
Defendant failed to investigate its own work allegations in order to terminate
Plaintiff’s employment in violation of the ADA Regulations.
Discussion
Rule 12(b)(6) Standard
When ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court
must take as true the alleged facts and determine whether they are sufficient to raise
-3-

more than a speculative right to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
555-56 (2007). The Court does not, however, accept as true any allegation that is a
legal conclusion. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009). The
complaint must have “‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
[plaintiff] is entitled to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the
. . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555
(quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2)) and then Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957),
abrogated by Twombly, supra); see also Gregory v. Dillard’s Inc., 565 F.3d 464,
473 (8th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 628 (2009). While detailed factual
allegations are not necessary, a complaint that contains “labels and conclusions,”
and “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is not sufficient.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. The complaint must set
forth “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; C.N. v. Willmar Pub. Sch., Indep.
Sch. Dist. No. 347, 591 F.3d 624, 629-30 (8th Cir.2010); Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d
842, 848 (8th Cir. 2010); Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th
Cir. 2009). “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. If the claims are only
-4-

conceivable, not plausible, the complaint must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at
570; accord Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. In considering a motion to dismiss under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), “the complaint should be read as a whole, not parsed piece
by piece to determine whether each allegation, in isolation, is plausible.” Braden,
588 F.3d at 594. The issue in considering such a motion is not whether the plaintiff
will ultimately prevail, but whether the plaintiff is entitled to present evidence in
support of the claim. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989).
Motion to Dismiss Complaint
Defendants argue that the Complaint must be dismissed because the
Complaint fails to set forth any allegations or facts to support Plaintiff’s claim that
he was the victim of harassment while employed with Defendant, or that Defendant
had notice from Plaintiff of the alleged harassment. Although Plaintiff claims he
was discriminated against based on his gender, race, physical and emotional
disability and retaliated against Plaintiff, Plaintiff alleges nothing to support these
conclusions. Likewise, Defendant argues Plaintiff fails to present any instances of
harassment which would support Plaintiff’s claim.
Defendant claims Plaintiff was an “at will” employee and therefore, it was
not required to follow any progressive discipline procedure. Plaintiff has alleged
that he abided by the Employee Handbook, however, Plaintiff fails to allege that
-5-

through the Handbook, he was entitled to progressive discipline procedures.
As the Complaint stands, Plaintiff has merely set out the formalistic
requirements of his claims. He has failed to provide Defendant with sufficient facts
surrounding the claims to allow Defendant to ascertain the basis of Plaintiff’s
claims. As such, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to satisfy the Twombly and Iqbal
standard.2
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to set forth sufficient allegations to state a claim
for relief. Under the standards required, Plaintiff must provide more than
conclusions and a formalistic recitation of the elements of his claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No.
5], is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is given 14 days from the date
of this Opinion, Memorandum and Order to file an Amended Complaint.
Dated this 26th day of November, 2013.

________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2

Defendant has submitted an affidavit in support of its position. However, because the
motion before court is one for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court will not, at this
stage consider this affidavit.
-6-