SIVELLS v. SAM'S CLUB
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, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 14-7650 (KM)
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
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
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
Treatment! Discrimination Schedules given to male and
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).
pleadings leniently, I see enough here
to warrant at least some discovery.
IT IS this 6th day of April, 2016
ORDERED as follows:
The motion to dismiss (ECF no. 16) is DEN
The plaintiff’s statement (ECF no. 17)
shall be deemed to be a
supplement to her Complaint.
The defendant shall file an Answer wit
hin 21 days. See Fed. R. Civ.
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?