Thomas v. Drive Automotive Industries of America Inc et al
Filing
81
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 45 . Defendant Maurers Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED. Therefore, all claims against Defendant Maurer are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 10/22/2018. (kric, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Albert Marco Thomas,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Drive Automotive Industries of America,
Inc., and Dan Maurer,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 6:18-cv-00169-TMC
ORDER
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action alleging that his former
employer, Defendant Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc. (“Drive”) and
former manager, Defendant Maurer, retaliated and discriminated against him
because of his race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (ECF No. 1). On May 23, 2018, Defendant
Maurer filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff responded (ECF No.
35), and Defendant Maurer replied (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff subsequently filed a sur
reply. (ECF No. 42).
In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Civil Rule 73.02,
D.S.C., this matter was referred to a magistrate judge for pretrial handling. Before
the court is the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation (“Report”), which
recommends that the court grant Defendant Maurer’s Motion to Dismiss and that
all claims against Defendant Maurer be dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 45).
1
Plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report. Id. at 4. Plaintiff
filed timely objections (ECF No. 61), and Defendant Maurer responded to those
objections (ECF No. 71).
The Report has no presumptive weight and the responsibility to make a final
determination in this matter remains with this court. See Mathews v. Weber, 423
U.S. 261, 270-71 (1976). In the absence of objections, this court is not required to
provide an explanation for adopting the Report. See Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d
198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983). Rather, “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a
district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the
recommendation.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310,
315 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 advisory committee’s note).
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Maurer discriminated against him by filing a
Progressive Discipline Action in Plaintiff’s personnel file but not filing one against
the “white team lead on A shift.” (ECF No. 1 at 5). Plaintiff further contends that
Defendant Maurer then filed another Progressive Discipline Action against
Plaintiff two weeks later for the same offense. Id. Finally, Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant Maurer subsequently eliminated Plaintiff’s position after Plaintiff had
worked for the company for ten years. Id. As noted in the Complaint, Defendant
2
Maurer is a Quality Assistant Manager for Defendant Drive, Plaintiff’s former
employer. Id. at 1.
Plaintiff contends that all of this was in retaliation against Plaintiff and that it
was also discriminatory based on his race, in violation of Title VII. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff states that he “suffered from pain and suffering, inconvenience, [and]
mental anguish . . . physical injuries” and lost wages. Id. at 6. Plaintiff further
claims that he suffered damage to his reputation and character. Id. As a result,
Plaintiff seeks sixty thousand dollars as relief. Id.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears certain that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support his claim and entitle him to
relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). When considering a motion to dismiss, the court
should “accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint
in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d
1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993).
However, the court “need not accept the legal
conclusions drawn from the facts” nor “accept as true unwarranted inferences,
unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd.
P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). While “a plaintiff is not required to
plead facts that constitute a prima facie case in order to survive a motion to dismiss
3
. . . , factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Coleman v. Md. Court of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir.
2010) (citations omitted).
Therefore, a plaintiff’s complaint only needs to include “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2). Additionally, when “evaluating a civil rights complaint for failure to state
a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6),” the court must be “especially solicitous of
the wrongs alleged.” Harrison v. U.S. Postal Serv., 840 F.2d 1149, 1152 (4th Cir.
1988) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, when the plaintiff proceeds pro se,
the court is charged with liberally construing the factual allegations of the
complaint in order to allow potentially meritorious claims to go forward. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Still, this requirement of liberal
construction does not mean that this court may ignore a clear failure in the
pleading to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim for relief. Weller v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990).
III.
DISCUSSION
In his Report, the magistrate judge recommended that Defendant Maurer’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) be granted because employees and supervisors
are not liable in their individual capacities for violations of Title VII.” (ECF No.
45 at 2) (citing Lissau v. S. Food Serv., Inc., 159 F.3d 177, 180 (4th Cir. 1998)). In
4
his objections, Plaintiff simply reiterated his allegations against both Defendant
Drive and Defendant Maurer and stated the he disagreed with the magistrate
judge’s determination that a supervisor cannot be held individually liable under
Title VII. (ECF No. 61).
Plaintiff cited multiple cases in support of his contention that a supervisor
can be liable individually for violations of Title VII. Id. However, notably, none
of these cases relate to claims for violations of Title VII. See Jones v. Lodge at
Torrey Pines P’ship, 173 P.3d 232 (Cal. 2008) (holding that nonemployer
individuals may not be held personally liable under the Fair Employment and
Housing Act); Harless v. First Nat’l Bank in Fairmont, 289 S.E.2d 692 (W. Va.
1982) (holding that a supervisor could be found individually liable for the state law
tort of retaliatory discharge in West Virginia); Frampton v. Cent. Indiana Gas Co.,
297 N.E.2d 425 (Ind. 1973) (holding that an employee may file a claim for
retaliatory discharge pursuant to the Indiana Workman’s Compensation Act or the
Indiana Workmen’s Occupational Diseases Act). Furthermore, none of these cases
affect the binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit, which, as the magistrate judge
correctly noted, states that “[e]mployees are not liable in their individual capacities
for Title VII violations.” Lissau, 159 F.3d at 178; see also, Baird ex rel. Baird v.
Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 472 (4th Cir. 1999) (“Title VII does not authorize a remedy
5
against individuals for violation of its provisions.”). Accordingly, the court
overrules this objection.
IV.
CONCLUSION
After a thorough review of the Report and the record in this case, the court
adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report (ECF No. 45) and incorporates it herein.
Accordingly, Defendant Maurer’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 23) is GRANTED.
Therefore, all claims against Defendant Maurer are hereby DISMISSED with
prejudice.*
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Timothy M. Cain
Timothy M. Cain
United States District Judge
October 22, 2018
Anderson, South Carolina
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
The parties are hereby notified of the right to appeal this order pursuant to
Rules 3 and 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Drive are unaffected by this Order and will remain pending
before the court.
*
6
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?