Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 16 Motion to Dismiss, plaintiff's statement (ECF No. 17) shall be deemed to be a supplement to her Complaint, and Defendant shall file an Answer w/in 21 days. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 4/6/16. (sr, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CHANTEL SIVELLS, Civ. No. 14-7650 (KM) Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM & ORDER V. SAMS CLUB, Defendant. The plaintiff, Chantel Sivells, pro se, has brought this actio n under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, and sex; retaliation; defamation; pain and suffering; and wrongful termination. Before the court is the motion (ECF no. 16) of the defendant, Sams Club, to dismiss the complaint for failu re to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The applicable stand ard is well known and will not be repeated here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Bell Ati. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The handwritten complaint was filed on the stand ard short-form complaint form. Defendant, to be sure, has a point. The only detail the complaint gives as to discrimination is “Men treat ed differently, hispanics treated better.” (ECF no. 1 at ¶ 10) Attached to the complaint, however, are voluminous exhibits. Within them are letters and othe r writings giving a bit more detail. (See exhibits to complaint, ECF no. 1-1 at p. 30 (letter of 11/27/2013); p. 35 (letter of 1/24/2014.) In response to the defendant’s motion, Ms. Sivells filed a seven page statement. (ECF no. 17) This, at least, alleges “5. Unfair Treatment! Discrimination Schedules given to male and Hispanic employees that I asked for. Was told by manager that I wasn’t fair to give what I requested — before them to me. Men never forced to work through their 15 minute or meal breaks ever or Hispanic employees.” (Id. ¶ 5) The plaintiff claims that male managers “teamed up” against her (id. at p.3), and that “Hispanics were given schedules and promotions” (id. at p. 5) She also alleges retaliation for complaining of unfair treatment. Var ious violations of company policies are alleged; these would not be independe ntly actionable, but could be relevant to a claim of retaliation or to demonstrate that the reasons given for firing (use of profanity) were a pretext. Apparently the plaintiff has been reinstated to her position, but this is unclear. A pro se pleading will not be held to the same standards as those drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). Reading the pleadings leniently, I see enough here to warrant at least some discovery. Accordingly, IT IS this 6th day of April, 2016 ORDERED as follows: 1. The motion to dismiss (ECF no. 16) is DEN IED. 2. The plaintiff’s statement (ECF no. 17) shall be deemed to be a supplement to her Complaint. 3. P. 12(a). The defendant shall file an Answer wit hin 21 days. See Fed. R. Civ. KEVIN MCNULTY United States District Judge —‘

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?