RUTT v. CITY OF READING, PA et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE LAWRENCE F. STENGEL ON 3/13/2014. 3/14/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(sg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
LETTY RUTT,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF READING, PA, et. al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION
No. 13-4559

MEMORANDUM
STENGEL, J.

March 13, 2014

Letty Rutt, plaintiff, filed this action against the City of Reading and her
former supervisors claiming violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA),
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII. On December 19, 2013,
I dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to plead an adverse employment
action. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which defendants have moved to
dismiss. In the alternative, defendants move for a more definite statement.
Because the amended complaint is ambiguous and unintelligible, I will grant
defendants motion for a more definite statement as to Ms. Rutt’s ADA and FMLA
claims. I will dismiss Ms. Rutt’s Title VII claim with prejudice.
I.

BACKGROUND
Accepting the well pleaded allegations as true, I can glean the following

facts from the amended complaint. Ms. Rutt was employed as a records clerk in
the Reading Police Department. During 2010 and 2011, Ms. Rutt sustained

several injuries which caused her to be absent from work. At some point or points
in 2012 and 2013, Ms. Rutt requested either FMLA leave or reasonable
accommodations or both. As a result, Ms. Rutt alleges defendants terminated her
and interfered with her rights under the statutes. When exactly these events
occurred and under what circumstances is unclear.
II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
“A party may move for a more definite statement of a pleading to which a

responsive pleading is allowed but which is so vague or ambiguous that the party
cannot reasonably prepare a response.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e); See also Schaedler
v. Reading Eagle Publ'n, Inc., 370 F.2d 795, 798 (3d Cir. 1967). “Typically, the
court restricts the use of this motion to pleadings suffering from unintelligibility
rather than the want of detail.” Retzlaff v. Horace Mann Ins., 738 F. Supp. 2d
564, 568-69 (D. Del. 2010) (citations omitted). “[T]he pleading also must be so
vague or ambiguous that the opposing party cannot respond to it, even with a
simple denial as permitted by Rule 8(b), with a pleading that can be interposed in
good faith or without prejudice to himself.” 5C Wright & Miller Fed. Prac. &
Proc. Civ. § 1376 (3d ed.)
III.

DISCUSSION
I will grant defendants’ motion for a more definite statement as to

plaintiff’s ADA and FMLA claims. I dismissed the original complaint because
plaintiff’s counsel failed to plead any adverse employment action - an essential
element of both Ms. Rutt’s FMLA and ADA claims. I granted plaintiff leave to
2

amend in order to correct this defect. Perhaps to be overly cautious, counsel has
now filed an amended complaint alleging Ms. Rutt was terminated by the
defendants three or four times and potentially alleging up to nine events of
protected activity. The problems with this strategy are twofold.
First, the allegations which appear to plead protected conduct are so vague
that I cannot determine what Ms. Rutt was requesting. For example, the amended
complaint alleges, “On May 30, 2013, Plaintiff had a medical evaluation and later
the same day hand-delivered the medical note by depositing in the personal mail
bin of Defendant Daniswerski….” Am. Compl. ¶ 37. I cannot infer from this
allegation whether Ms. Rutt was requesting a reasonable accommodation under
the ADA, whether she was requesting FMLA leave or both. Were I to conclude,
on the basis of paragraph 39,1 that Ms. Rutt was requesting a reasonable
accommodation, there would be no facts to support her third FMLA claim. At this
point in the litigation, it would not be in the interests of justice to arbitrarily
dismiss one claim over the other because the pleadings are unclear. 2
Second, the allegations do not follow in logical order. Under the heading
of “First Retaliation and First Termination,” counsel asserts that plaintiff was
1

Paragraph 39 alleges:
“On June 4, 2013, Plaintiff hand-delivered to Defendant Daniswerski a medical note providing for
work limitations.
a.
Defendant Daniswerski said “with the [medical] restrictions we cannot
allow you to work
b.
Plaintiff asked for reasonable accommodation; and
c.
Defendant Daniswerski repeated we “cannot allow you to work.”

2

While I do not attempt to create an exhaustive list, paragraphs 25, 27 and 34 suffer from the same
ambiguities.

3

terminated on February 14, 2012, but that she submitted her FMLA documents on
February 23. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20 23. Then on March, 7, the complaint alleges,
Ms. Rutt requested work limitations which were denied on March 8. Am. Compl.
¶¶ 25, 26. It just doesn’t make sense that Ms. Rutt would continue to negotiate an
FMLA or ADA claim with her employer after she was terminated. As such, I
would agree with defendants that it sounds more likely that defendants granted
Ms. Rutt a leave of absence on February 14. On the other hand, if I accepted that
Ms. Rutt was terminated on February 14, I would not know what to make of the
subsequent allegations. Understandably then, defendants do not know what events
Ms. Rutt claims violated the FMLA and the ADA. In fact, defendant’s motion
argues that the March 8 event was the alleged violation; whereas, I thought the
violation occurred on February 14. These allegations are unintelligible, and I do
not believe that defendants can file an answer without guessing what the bases of
Ms. Rutt’s claims are. Blindly answering the amended complaint at this point
could easily prejudice the defendants.
The amended complaint is also poorly organized which further complicates
matters. The facts are organized under the headings: First Retaliation and First
Termination; Second Retaliation and Second Termination; Third Realization and
Third Termination. This is confusing because under each heading there are
multiple events from which one could infer that defendants retaliated. The
headings also suggest that Ms. Rutt’s claims under the FMLA and ADA arise from
the same events. While an ADA claim is not necessarily exclusive of an FMLA
4

claim, the statutes do make the two claims somewhat incongruous. 3 Because of
this asymmetry, counsel needs to provide greater distinctions on what facts
support which claim. Finally, the headings leave me wondering if counsel has
alleged any facts plausibly supporting discrimination or interference claims.
To make matters worse, the counts are a total mess. Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 10(b) clearly states, “each claim founded on a separate transaction or
occurrence … must be stated in a separate count or defense.” As such, there
should be a heading labeled Count 1 followed by a recitation of the elements of
the claim and the facts which plausibly plead each element. Instead, counsel
gloms the six counts arising under the FMLA under one heading with no direction
as to what facts support Ms. Rutt’s claims. The ADA claims are equally
mishandled. Cleaning up the counts would go a long way to clear up the
confusion I have identified in this memorandum. By way of example only, if
count one stated Ms. Rutt was retaliated against when defendants terminated her
on February 14, neither the defendants nor I would need to guess how Ms. Rutt
claims she was injured.
Perhaps what is most frustrating is counsel’s utter failure to address any of
the meritorious arguments in defendants’ motion to dismiss. Rather, counsel
submits a lengthy discussion on the implications of Twombly and Iqbal followed

3

The ADA protects individuals who, “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the
essential functions of the employment position.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 12111 (emphasis added). On the other
hand, the FMLA entitles an employee to leave when “a serious health condition that makes the employee
unable to perform the functions of the position of such employee.” 29 U.S.C.A. § 2612 (emphasis
added).

5

by a verbatim recitation of the facts in the complaint. Apparently, counsel
believes that he can throw whatever facts he can muster on a sheet of paper
followed by a regurgitation of statutory language and survive a motion to dismiss.
Counsel is sorely mistaken. As counsel should well know, he must draft a
complaint which is a short and plain statement of the case and which places the
defendants on notice of what the claim is. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); Bell Atlantic
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). This complaint is so ambiguous and
unintelligible that it misses the mark.
Ordinarily, I would see no need to file a memorandum explaining my
reasons for granting a motion for a more definite statement. I do so here to put
plaintiff’s counsel on notice that should he fail to rectify these errors in the second
amended complaint, he risks having the case dismissed with prejudice. This is our
second go around and counsel is farther away from pleading a plausible claim for
relief than he was in the original complaint. If he falls short again, I will be
inclined to conclude that granting any additional leave to amend would be futile
thus warranting dismissal with prejudice. See e.g., Grayson v. Mayview State
Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002)
Plaintiff need not re-plead Count XVI, because I will dismiss this count
with prejudice. Plaintiff claims she was terminated in retaliation for asserting
rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3. This statute makes it unlawful to retaliate
against an employee for opposing a practice made unlawful by Title VII. Title VII
makes it unlawful for an employer to fail or refuse to hire an individual on the
6

basis of his or her race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. §2000e-2. This
complaint is devoid of any facts to suggest that defendants discriminated against
plaintiff or any other employee on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin. When I dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint, I specifically warned
counsel that there was no basis in law in asserting an FMLA or ADA retaliation
claim under the aegis of Title VII.4 As the amended complaint adds no new facts
to support a Title VII claim, I must conclude that counsel is persisting in the
misguided belief that he can assert an ADA or FMLA claim through Title VII.
Such a claim is meritless, frivolous and should be dismissed with prejudice.
IV.

CONCLUSION
Because I find that the complaint is unintelligible, I will grant defendants’

motion for more definite statement. However, Plaintiff’s Title VII claims are
dismissed with prejudice.
An appropriate order follows.

4

Indeed, the FMLA and ADA include their own anti-retaliation provisions. 29 U.S.C. § 2615; 42 U.S.C. §
12203

7