Chadwick v. Food Lion, Inc.
ORDER GRANTING 11 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, and GRANTING 20 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. The clerk shall close this matter. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/17/2014. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff via US Mail. (Fisher, M.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
FOOD LION, INC., d/b/a DELHAIZE
This matter is before the Court on defendant Food Lion, LLC's ("Food Lion") motion to
dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), (4), (5) and (6) [DE 11], and Food
Lion's motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, to strike plaintiffs amended complaint [DE 20].
Pro se plaintiff never responded to either motion despite being sent notice by the Court on March
3, 2014 that her responses were due by March 20, 2014. [DE 22]. Therefore, the motions are ripe
for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motions to dismiss are GRANTED.
Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a pro se complaint and a request to proceed in
forma pauperis with the Court on December 9, 2013. On December 12, 2013, the Court granted
plaintiffs request to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff brings a race based claim of
employment discrimination against defendant under Title VII of the civil Rights Act of 1964
("Title VII") based a lack of promotions and advancement compared to white employees and her
termination. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs complaint alleging insufficient process,
Defendant notes that it was improperly identified in the complaint as Food Lion, Inc. d/b/a Delhaize America, Inc.
insufficient service of process, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.
A Rule 12(b)(6) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of a plaintiffs complaint.
Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4th Cir. 2009). When ruling on the motion, the court
"must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint." Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (citing Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56
(2007)). Although complete and detailed factual allegations are not required, "a plaintiffs
obligation to provide the 'grounds' of his 'entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and
conclusions." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citations omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). Similarly, a court need not accept
as true a plaintiffs "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Eastern
Shore Mkts. v. JD. Assocs. Ltd., 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). A trial court is "not bound to
accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
In order to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII alleging discriminatory failure
to promote on account of her race, plaintiff must allege ( 1) that she is a member of a protected
class; (2) that her employer had an open position for which she applied; (3) that she was
qualified for the position; and (4) that she was rejected for the position under circumstances
giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination. Taylor v. Va. Union Univ., 193 F.3d 219,
230 (4th Cir. 1999) (en bane). Plaintiff also alleges that she was discriminatorily discharged. In
order to state a claim for such a cause of action, plaintiff must allege that ( 1) she is a member of
a protected class under Title VII; (2) the prohibited conduct in which she engaged was
comparable in seriousness to misconduct of employees outside the protected class; and (3) she
suffered more severe discipline for her misconduct as compared to those employees outside the
protected class. Id. at 234.
Here, plaintiff fails to allege sufficient facts to allege her claims. The complaint does not
state plaintiffs protected class. The complaint does not include any factual allegations regarding
the specifics of a job that plaintiff applied for and was denied. The complaint foes not allege the
specifics of the altercation that lead to her termination including how comparable her behavior
was to that of the employee who was not fired. Conclusory allegations that an employer
discriminated against plaintiff because of race are not sufficient to allege a claim when the facts
of the complaint do not support the conclusory assertion. Bass v. E.I. Dupont Nemours &co., 324
F.3d 761, 765-66 (4th Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs conclusory assertions of "discriminatory conduct"
are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Because plaintiff fails to state a
claim, her claim for punitive damages must also be dismissed. Bratcher v. Pharm. Prod. Dev.,
Inc., 545 F. Supp. 2d 533, 547 (E.D.N.C. 2008). Accordingly, her entire complaint is dismissed
in its entirety.
Plaintiffs amended complaint fails to properly state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Although plaintiff alleges that she is a member of a protected class as a black woman,
she fails to allege facts which support the remaining elements of her claims as delineated above.
Her allegations are still wholly conclusory and insufficient to state a claim. Accordingly, her
amended complaint is also dismissed in its entirety.
For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motions to dismiss are GRANTED. Plaintiffs
claims are DISMISSED in their entirety. The clerk is directed to close the file.
_j_!/_ day of April, 2014.
TERRENCE W. BOYL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
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?