Braddock v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; Plaintiff has until 4/20/17 to amend the Complaint. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 4/5/2017. (Jackson, Ryan)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
JAMES J. BRADDOCK and
C.A. No. 16-526
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
and CHRISTOPHER SACRAMONE,
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) For the reasons set forth below,
the Defendant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.
for Defendant Wal-Mart Stores East, LP (“Wal-Mart”) under the
supervision of Defendant Sacramone.
Plaintiff alleges various
forms of discrimination by Defendants Wal-Mart and Sacramone,
Practices Act (Counts I-VI), the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act
of 1990 (Counts VII-XI), and the Rhode Island Whistleblowers
Protection Act (Count XII). (See
Compl. 6-10, ECF No. 1-1.)
improperly joined because he has not been identified in any of
the counts in the Complaint. Second, Defendant Sacramone argues
that the statutes cited by Plaintiff provide only for employer
liability, not liability for an individual employee.
A review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff included
Defendant Sacramone in the case caption and provided allegations
Complaint does not make clear which counts are alleged against
Defendant Sacramone. In response to this issue, Plaintiff has
requested leave to amend the Complaint to make clear under which
counts Defendant Sacramone has been included. (Pl.’s Resp. 3,
ECF No. 10.)
The Court will “freely give leave” for a party to amend
their complaint whenever “justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). The Court therefore provides Plaintiff with 14 days to
amend the Complaint in order to make clear under which counts
Defendant Sacramone is included.1 Once Plaintiff has amended the
Given the allegations in this case, the Court brings to
Plaintiff’s attention the recent Rhode Island Supreme Court
holding in Mancini v. City of Providence, No. 2014-88, 2017 WL
924178 (R.I. Mar. 8, 2017), which held that the Rhode Island
Fair Employment Practices Act does not provide for individual
liability for an employee of a defendant employer.
Dismiss, if necessary. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9)
is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
William E. Smith
Date: April 5, 2017
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?