Turner v. Bassett Furniture Direct, et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER... IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Defendant Bassett Furniture Industries Inc. to dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs complaint is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 4 .) Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 4/7/2015. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

TINA M. TURNER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BASSETT FURNITURE DIRECT, and )
BASSETT FURNITURE INDUSTRIES )
INC..
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:15CV00182 AGF

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This employment discrimination matter is before the Court on the unopposed
motion of Defendant Bassett Furniture Industries Inc. (“Basset Furniture”), Plaintiff Tina
Turner’s former employer, to dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint. For the reasons
set forth below, the motion to dismiss Count II shall be granted.
Plaintiff alleges that she was discharged by her former employer on January 21,
2014. In Count I, she asserts gender, race, and disability discrimination and retaliation
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and under the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Count II asserts denial of accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29
U.S.C. § 701, et seq. Bassett Furniture argues that Count II is subject to dismissal because
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 only applies to entities that receive federal funding or to
federal agencies.

A complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a
disability . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her disability . . . be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program
or activity conducted by any Executive agency.” As Bassett Furniture argues, the
Rehabilitation Act only applies to a program or activity receiving federal financial
assistance or to a federal agency. Here there is no allegation in the complaint that
Plaintiff’s former employer fits this profile; and as noted above, Plaintiff does not so argue
in opposition to the motion to dismiss Count II. Thus, Count II is subject to dismissal.
See, e.g., Collins v. AT&T, No. 4:10CV1573 RWS, 2010 WL 3829376, at *1 (E.D. Mo.
Sept. 24, 2010).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion of Defendant Bassett Furniture
Industries Inc. to dismiss Count II of Plaintiff’s complaint is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 4.)

_______________________________
AUDREY G. FLEISSIG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 7th day of April, 2015.

2