WEST v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION re 10 MOTION to Dismiss re 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 6-30-2011. (lmt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GILBERT L. WEST,
Plaintiff,
11cv0464
ELECTRONICALLY
FILED
v.
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This lawsuit initiated by pro se Plaintiff, Gilbert L. West, alleged that Defendant, The
Prudential Insurance Company, violated The Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Act
of 2008 (“ADAAA”), the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), and other state based
statutes, when Defendant refused to hire Plaintiff for a job. See doc. no. 1. Plaintiff timely filed
a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claiming there, as
here, that he was a qualified individual with a disability as defined by the ADAAA.
Plaintiff received his right to sue letter and he filed his Complaint with this Court within
the proscribed time frame. Defendant has filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint claiming
Plaintiff failed to raise a justiciable claim. Doc. no. 10. Plaintiff filed a Response to the Motion
(doc. no. 12) and Defendant filed a Reply Brief after seeking and obtaining Court permission to
do so. Doc. no. 18. The matter is now ripe for adjudication.
I. Factual Background1
In his Complaint, Plaintiff indicates that on December 10, 2009 he responded to an
online job offer posted by Defendant. Doc. No. 1, ¶ 12. A few days after he completed the
application, he was contacted by Defendant and an initial interview was scheduled. Id. at ¶ 14.
During his initial interview, Plaintiff met with an agent of Defendant and completed a
test which the interviewer administered. Id. at ¶¶ 15-16. The next day Plaintiff was contacted
by Defendant and was asked to return for another interview. Id. at ¶ 17.
Plaintiff then met with a different agent of Defendant who discussed some additional
insurance industry examinations. Id. at ¶18. During this meeting, Plaintiff was asked to
compile a list of two hundred prospective clients; and from the list of two hundred, he was to
designate fifty who were likely to do business with Plaintiff “sooner rather than later;” and from
the list of fifty, he was to designate twenty who were ready to “buy now.” Id. at ¶¶ 19-22.
After Plaintiff timely completed this assignment, he was called by Defendant for a third
interview. Id. at ¶¶ 23-25. During this interview, Defendant described the benefits available
and asked Plaintiff about his felony conviction which Plaintiff had described in his application.
Id. at ¶¶ 26-27.
Defendant‟s agent admitted Defendant‟s investigators could not find any evidence of
Plaintiff‟s criminal conviction, so Plaintiff presented copies of various documents pertaining to
his criminal history and rehabilitation. Id. at ¶¶ 27-30. Plaintiff was informed that Defendant
would need time to review the new information. Id. at 31. Plaintiff contacted Defendant by
telephone to inquire as to a start date, and in response received a letter from Defendant
1
Solely for purposes of deciding this Motion to Dismiss, all factual averments set forth in Plaintiff‟s Complaint and
reiterated here are assumed to be true.
2
indicating that Defendant “decided not to hire” Plaintiff for a position based on information
received as part of the “Pre-Hire process”. Id. at ¶ 36.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit primarily alleging that Defendant violated the ADAAA for
failing to hire him due to his felony conviction. Id. at ¶¶ 37-38 and Count I, generally. Plaintiff
also alleged that the actions taken by Defendant violated the PHRA.2 See Count II, generally.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, federal courts require notice pleading, as opposed
to the heightened standard of fact pleading. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires
only “„a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,‟ in
order to „give the defendant fair notice of what the …claim is and the grounds on which it
rests.‟” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson,
355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
Building upon the landmark United States Supreme Court decisions in Twombly, 550
U.S. 54 and Aschroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1947 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, recently explained that a District Court must take three steps to determine
the sufficiency of a complaint:
First, the court must “tak[e] note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a
claim.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1947 (2009). Second, the court should
identify allegations that, “because they are no more than conclusions, are not
entitled to the assumption of truth.‟ Id. at 1950. Third, “whe[n] there are wellpleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement for relief.‟ Id. This
2
Defendant noted in its Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (doc. no. 11) as well as in its Reply Brief (doc.
no. 18) that at various times Plaintiff relied upon New York law. However, this Court finds that the only claims
raised by Plaintiff in his Complaint assert violations of the ADAAA and the PHRA. Accordingly, to the extent
required, this Court analyzed the PHRA claim based on Pennsylvania law. Although Plaintiff‟s Complaint
references New York statutory laws governing “unlawful employment practices on the basis of prior convictions”
(see ¶¶ 1 and 48 of doc. no. 1), Plaintiff‟s Complaint does not assert a cause of action based on a violation of any
New York statutory law.
3
means that our inquiry is normally broken into three parts: (1) identifying the
elements of the claim, (2) reviewing the complaint to strike conclusory
allegations, and then (3) looking at the well-pleaded components of the
complaint and evaluating whether all of the elements identified in part one of the
inquiry are sufficiently alleged.
Malleus v. George, No. 10-3539, 2011 F.3d WL 2044166, at *6 (3d Cir. May 26, 2011).
The third step of the sequential evaluation requires this Court to consider the specific
nature of the claim(s) presented and to determine whether the facts pled to substantiate the
claim(s) are sufficient to show a “plausible claim for relief.” “While legal conclusions can
provide the framework of a Complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.” Id.; See
also Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210-11.
The Court may not dismiss a Complaint (or Counterclaim) merely because it appears
unlikely or improbable that plaintiff can prove the facts alleged or will ultimately prevail on the
merits. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 563 n.8. Instead, the Court must ask whether the facts
alleged raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of the necessary
elements. Id. at 556. Generally speaking, a Complaint (or Counterclaim) that provides
adequate facts to establish “how, when, and where” will survive a Motion to Dismiss. Fowler,
578 F.3d at 212; See also Guirguis v. Movers Specialty Services, Inc., 346 Fed.Appx. 774, 776
(3d Cir. 2009). In short, the Motion to Dismiss should not be granted if a party alleges facts
which could, if established at trial, entitle him to relief. Fowler, 578 F.3d at 563 n.8.
4
III. Discussion
The stated purpose of the ADAAA is as follows:
Purpose
It is the purpose of this chapter—
(1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the
elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing
discrimination against individuals with disabilities;
(3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing
the standards established in this chapter on behalf of individuals with
disabilities; and
(4) to invoke the sweep of congressional authority, including the power to
enforce the fourteenth amendment and to regulate commerce, in order to
address the major areas of discrimination faced day-to-day by people with
disabilities.
42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 (b).3
Defendant‟s primary argument, (with which this Court agrees), is that Plaintiff‟s lawsuit
alleging Defendant violated the ADAAA and/or the PHRA when it opted not hire Plaintiff must
be dismissed because Plaintiff does not meet the definition of “disabled” as required by those
Acts.
3
The PHRA defines disability with respect to a person, as:
(1) a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's
major life activities;
(2) a record of having such an impairment; or
(3) being regarded as having such an impairment, but such term does not include current,
illegal use of or addiction to a controlled substance, as defined in section 102 of the
Controlled Substances Act (Public Law 91-513, 21 U.S.C. § 802).
42 P.S. § 954(p.1).
5
Under the ADAAA, a person meets the definition of having a “disability” if that
individual has:
(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more
major life activities of such individual;
(B) a record of such an impairment; or
(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph
(3)).
42 U.S.C.A. § 12102.
Here, as Defendant notes in its Brief in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment,
Plaintiff‟s Complaint does not allege that Plaintiff has either a mental or physical impairment.
See Defendant‟s Brief at pp 5-6. Without possessing either a physical or mental impairment,
Plaintiff cannot meet the threshold definition of “disability” as defined by the ADAAA and the
PHRA, and thus, Plaintiff cannot avail himself of the protections of these Acts.
In his Response to Defendant‟s Motion and Brief in Support, Plaintiff cites statutory law
which governs when a person may engage “in the business of insurance” following a felony
conviction. See Plaintiff‟s Brief in Opposition, pp. 5-9. Plaintiff‟s Complaint suggests he was
not hired because of his felony conviction and not because he has a disability. See Doc. No. 1,
¶¶ 13, 27-37. Thus, the Plaintiff has clearly articulated that he believes that his felony
conviction cost him the potential job opportunity with Defendant, which cannot form the basis
of a claim under the ADAAA. 4
4
In light of the statements made by Plaintiff in his Complaint and in his Brief in Opposition to the Motion
to Dismiss, this Court finds that any amendment would be futile, and thus Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss
will be granted with prejudice. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d
Cir.1997) (“ . . . a district court may exercise its discretion and deny leave to amend on the basis of . . .
futility.”).
6
IV. Conclusion
This Court finds that Plaintiff has not pled a valid cause of action under either the
ADAAA or the PHRA. Based on the foregoing law and authority, this Court will GRANT
Defendant‟s Motion to Dismiss with prejudice.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Judge
cc:
Gilbert L. West, pro se
3009 Boyd Street
McKeesport, PA 15132
And all Registered ECF Counsel and Parties
7
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?