Mazzola v. St. Anthony's Medical Center
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (see order for details) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's second motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for a more definite statement [# 14 ] is denied. Defendant shall file an answer to plaintiff's amended com plaint, as modified by this Memorandum and Order, no later than February 14, 2014. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because she failed to comply with my order dated September 16, 2013, plaintiff will be limited to asserting claims based on events that oc curred between March 23, 2012 and June 18, 2012 and to claims based on the impairments she has listed in paragraphs 7 and 8(f) of her amended complaint. She may not assert any claims based on workplace assault or harassment or a hostile work environment. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on 01/30/2014. (CBL)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
ST. ANTHONY’S MEDICAL CENTER,)
Case No. 4:13CV786 CDP
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This action is before me on defendant St. Anthony’s Medical Center’s
second motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for a more definite statement. I
granted defendant’s first motion for a more definite statement in part and ordered
the plaintiff, Lori Mazzola, to amend her complaint in several specific ways.
Although Mazzola did not comply completely with my order, I find that most of
her complaint is now clear enough for defendant to prepare a response, so I will
deny the motion. However, as described below, I will limit Mazzola’s claims to
those which she alleges with sufficient detail.
To recap, Mazzola has sued St. Anthony’s Medical Center (SAMC), her
former employer, for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Rehabilitation Act. Mazzola worked as a registered
nurse for defendant from October 2000 until her discharge on June 18, 2012. She
now alleges that she filed an EEOC charge on February 5, 2013.
Mazzola alleges that she experienced discrimination because of her race
(white), gender (female), and disabilities, some of which are neck, shoulder, and
back pain, numb hands, post-traumatic-stress disorder, migraines, and major
depression. Mazzola alleges that she was harassed by other employees and denied
reasonable accommodations. She alleges that she told her supervisors but they
failed to act. She also alleges that she was subjected to different standards than
other employees, to whom SAMC gave easier work; that SAMC disciplined
Mazzola after she complained that she was not given accommodations; that SAMC
did not accurately record Mazzola’s attendance or performance; that SAMC failed
to cross-train her; and that she was “disrespected, yelled at and talked down to” by
One of the fatal problems with her previous complaint was that Mazzola
failed to provide even approximate dates for the discrimination and harassment she
allegedly experienced. I ordered her to amend her complaint to include this
information. Now, she alleges that SAMC discriminated against her “beginning
on, around and after the 23rd day of March, 2012 until Plaintiff was discharged by
Defendant on or about the 18th day of June, 2012.” (Am. Compl. ¶ 3.) This would
ordinarily be clear enough for SAMC to formulate a response, but Mazzola gives
conflicting dates at other points in the complaint. (See id. ¶¶ 8(a), (c)). Since
Mazzola has failed to comply with my order that she clarify when she was
subjected to discrimination and harassment, she is limited to asserting claims based
on that date range, and defendant SAMC should answer as such.
Another problem in the prior complaint was that Mazzola failed to identify
who harassed her and treated her differently. Although she has added some
individuals’ names at various places in her complaint, she still does not identify
who harassed her or treated her differently. Instead, she alleges that certain
individuals “knew” that she was subject to different employment standards, “were
aware of” her concerns about her father’s death at SAMC, and “were aware of” her
April 2012 application for FMLA leave.1 (Id. ¶¶ 8(c), (e), (f).) With the exception
of Mazzola’s allegations in paragraph 8(d) and 8(g) – that Ronnie Buckingham
attempted to demote her on two occasions, that she provided information about her
disabilities to various people, and that Buckingham and Debra Welsh terminated
her – these allegations still do not comply with my order. Therefore, Mazzola may
not assert any claim based on workplace assault or harassment or a hostile work
environment. Though she claims that she “would have no idea” what other
Plaintiff does not assert any claims under the FMLA.
employees were involved, the fact is that she would know who harassed or
assaulted her or subjected her to a hostile work environment, but she failed to
allege these claims sufficiently.
Finally, in her initial complaint, Mazzola listed some physical and mental
impairments but stated that her disabilities were “included but not limited to” the
impairments she listed. I specifically ordered Mazzola to list all of her alleged
disabilities so that SAMC could respond to her Rehabilitation Act claim. Mazzola
apparently did not even attempt to comply with this portion of my order. As such,
she is limited to asserting claims based on the impairments she has listed in her
amended complaint at paragraphs 7 and 8(f). SAMC should respond in kind.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s second motion to dismiss, or
in the alternative, for a more definite statement [#14] is denied. Defendant shall
file an answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint, as modified by this Memorandum
and Order, no later than February 14, 2014.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that because she failed to comply with my
order dated September 16, 2013, plaintiff will be limited to asserting claims based
on events that occurred between March 23, 2012 and June 18, 2012 and to claims
based on the impairments she has listed in paragraphs 7 and 8(f) of her amended
complaint. She may not assert any claims based on workplace assault or
harassment or a hostile work environment.
CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 30th day of January, 2014.
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?