Braddock v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP et al
Filing
14
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
)
ROBERT MCCUTCHEON
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
C.A. No. 16-526
WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP,
)
and CHRISTOPHER SACRAMONE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before
the
Court
is
Defendant
Christopher
Sacramone’s
Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 9.) For the reasons set forth below,
the Defendant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff
James
Braddock
(“Plaintiff”)
previously
worked
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,
including
violations
of
the
Rhode
Island
Fair
Employment
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
Defendant
Sacramone
grounds.
First,
moves
Defendant
to
Compl. 6-10, ECF No. 1-1.)
dismiss
Sacramone
the
Complaint
argues
that
on
he
two
was
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
against
Defendant
Complaint.
Sacramone
However,
in
Defendant
the
“Facts”
Sacramone
is
section
correct
of
the
that
the
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
Complaint,
1
Defendant
Sacramone
may
re-submit
his
Motion
to
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.
2
Dismiss, if necessary. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9)
is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__
William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: April 5, 2017
3
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?