GARDE-HILL v. CADBURY AT CHERRY HILL, INC. et al
Filing
8
OPINION FILED. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 7/14/16. (js)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
_________________________________
PATRIA P. GARDE-HILL,
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 15-8865 (NLH/JS)
v.
OPINION
CADBURY AT CHERRY HILL INC.,
et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
APPEARANCES:
Patria P. Garde-Hill
1017 Rymill Run
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Pro Se Plaintiff
Renee Nunley Smith
Louis L. Chodoff
Ballard Spahr LLO
210 Lake Drive East
Suite 200
Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
Attorneys for Defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
Presently before the Court is a motion to dismiss filed by
the individual defendants in this case, Megan Nessell, Tammi
Miloszar and Brian Klocke.
This motion is unopposed.
For the
reasons that follow, the motion [Doc. No. 4] will be granted.
I.
JURISDICTION
Alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., implicate federal question
jurisdiction and, therefore, this matter is properly before the
1
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
II.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that while working for Cadbury, a
continuing care retirement community, she was discriminated
against because of her age and terminated on October 17, 2014 in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (the
“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
Plaintiff recounts various events spanning the scope of
three years which she alleges demonstrates that she was unfairly
disciplined.
Plaintiff first alleges she was disciplined for
being unavailable to the staff while she was helping a resident
with suicidal ideations on March 27, 2011.
(Compl. at 8.)
She
alleges that on April 8, 2011, an administrator attempted to
have Plaintiff remove the title “Dr.” from her nametag to avoid
confusion, even though Plaintiff obtained a doctorate degree in
education.
(Compl. at 8-9.)
She alleges that on March 7, 2014,
she was suspended for three days for failing to report alleged
abuse from a family member to a resident. (Compl. at 3.)
Plaintiff alleges that on October 4, 2014, she was disciplined
for attending to a fallen resident during which time she was
called to assist a visitor who wanted to make a claim for abuse.
(Id.)
She alleges the October 4, 2014 matter was investigated
on October 14, 2014 and she was terminated three days later.
(Id.)
2
Plaintiff alleges she began to experience harassment and
discrimination in 2011 and sent a formal complaint to Defendant
Megan Nessell on April 24, 2011.
(Compl. at 7.)
The formal
complaint cited an event which allegedly occurred on February
17, 2011, where she was asked by the Director and Assistant
Director of Nursing when she was retiring and it was suggested
that Plaintiff reduce her hours.
(Id.)
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a court must accept all allegations
in the complaint as true and view them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.
347, 350 (3d Cir. 2005).
See Evancho v. Fisher, 423 F.3d
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)(2).
A district court, in weighing a motion to dismiss, asks
“not whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the
claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims[.]”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 563 n.8 (2007)
(quoting Scheuer v. Rhoades, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)); see also
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) (“Our decision in
Twombly expounded the pleading standard for ‘all civil
actions[.]’”) (citation omitted).
3
The Third Circuit has
instructed district courts to conduct a two-part analysis in
deciding a motion to dismiss.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578
F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009).
First, a district court “must accept all of the complaint’s
well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal
conclusions.”
Fowler, 578 F.3d at 210-11 (citing Iqbal, 129 S.
Ct. at 1949).
Second, a district court must “determine whether
the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that
the plaintiff has a ‘plausible claim for relief.’”
(quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950).
Id. at 211
“[A] complaint must do
more than allege the plaintiff’s entitlement to relief.”
Id.
“[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has
alleged – but it has not ‘show[n]’ - ‘that the pleader is
entitled to relief.’”
Id. (quoting Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949);
see also Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 234 (3d
Cir. 2008) (“The Supreme Court’s Twombly formulation of the
pleading standard can be summed up thus: ‘stating . . . a claim
requires a complaint with enough factual matter (taken as true)
to suggest’ the required element.
This ‘does not impose a
probability requirement at the pleading stage,’ but instead
‘simply calls for enough facts to raise a reasonable expectation
that discovery will reveal evidence of’ the necessary element.”)
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
4
A court need not credit “bald assertions” or “legal
conclusions” in a complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss.
In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1429–
30 (3d Cir. 1997).
The defendant has the burden of
demonstrating that no claim has been presented.
Hedges v.
United States, 404 F.3d 744, 750 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing Kehr
Packages, Inc. v. Fidelcor, Inc., 926 F.2d 1406, 1409 (3d Cir.
1991)).
IV.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges unlawful discrimination by her employer,
Cadbury, and three individuals, Megan Nessell, Tammi Miloszar
and Brian Klocke.
The individual defendants argue that
Plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action against them because
there is no individual liability under the ADEA.
The individual defendants are correct that there is no
individual liability under the ADEA.
Hill v. Borough of
Kutztown, 455 F.3d 225, 246 n.29 (3d Cir. 2006); Rodrock v.
Moury, 379 F. App'x 164, 166 (3d Cir. 2010); Parikh v. UPS, 491
F. App'x 303, 308 (3d Cir. 2012) (“Neither Title VII nor the
ADEA provides for individual liability.”).
Accordingly, the
claims against these individual defendants must be dismissed.
5
V.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons expressed above, the individual defendants’
motion to dismiss will be granted.
An appropriate Order will be
entered.
Dated: July 14, 2016
__s/ Noel L. Hillman_________
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.
At Camden, New Jersey
6
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?