Donald, Jackie v. Fiduciary Real Estate Dev

Filing 4

ORDER Dismissing 1 Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Amended Complaint due 6/21/2018. Signed by District Judge Barbara B. Crabb on 6/1/2018. (elc),(ps)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JACKIE DOSHARON DONALD,
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff,
18-cv-320-bbc
v.
FIDUCIARY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - In this proposed civil action for monetary relief, pro se plaintiff Jackie Donald is
alleging that her employer, defendant Fiduciary Real Estate Development, discriminated
against her because of her age by writing her up for an incident with another employee.
Because plaintiff is proceeding under the in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, and
cannot afford to make an initial partial payment, I must screen her complaint and dismiss
any claims that are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted or ask for money damages from a defendant who by law cannot be sued for money
damages. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
Unfortunately, I cannot review the potential merits of plaintiff’s claims at this time
because her pleading does not provide enough information to support a federal claim, as
required by Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although I am dismissing

1

plaintiff’s complaint, I will give her an opportunity to file an amended complaint that
explains her claim more clearly.

OPINION
Plaintiff alleges that she is fifty-two years old, and that sometime after she started
working at an apartment building on August 1, 2016, Leah Koreck “wrote [her] up” because
another employee was having a problem with her. Plaintiff alleges that Koreck did not
follow the employee handbook because she issued the write up without first discussing the
matter with plaintiff. She also alleges vaguely that she has been “mistreated” ever since.
Plaintiff’s allegations implicate her rights under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, which protects employees who are at least 40 years old by making it
unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or otherwise
discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). To
prove discrimination, a plaintiff must show that her employer subjected her to some form
of adverse employment action and that the employer took this adverse action on account of
plaintiff's age. Barton v. Zimmer, Inc., 662 F.3d 448, 453 (7th Cir. 2011). “Adverse
employment actions for purposes of the federal anti-discrimination statutes generally fall
into three categories: (1) termination or reduction in compensation, fringe benefits, or other
financial terms of employment; (2) transfers or changes in job duties that cause an
employee’s skills to atrophy and reduce future career prospects; and (3) unbearable changes

2

in job conditions, such as a hostile work environment or conditions amounting to
constructive discharge.” Id. at 453-54. In addition, in order to pursue a claim under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, a plaintiff must first file a charge of discrimination with
the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission within 300 days of the alleged unlawful
employment practice. Flannery v. Recording Industry Association of America, 354 F.3d 632,
637 (7th Cir. 2004).
Although plaintiff meets the age threshold of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act, her allegations are too vague to allow me to determine whether she can state a claim
upon which relief may be granted under the statute.

For example, she provides no

information about when the incident with the other employee occurred, what happened, the
circumstances under which she received the written reprimand, how she has been otherwise
“mistreated” or why she believes she was disciplined and mistreated because of her age.
Without more information, I cannot determine whether the write-up or “mistreatment” that
plaintiff allegedly received qualifies as an “adverse action” for purposes of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. Nagle v. Village of Calumet Park, 554 F.3d 1106,
1116-17 (7th Cir. 2009) (“[A]lthough the definition of an adverse employment action is
generous, an employee must show some quantitative or qualitative change in the terms or
conditions of his employment or some sort of real harm.”).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8 also requires that the
complaint contain enough allegations of fact to make a claim for relief plausible on its face.

3

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content
that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Id. Because plaintiff’s complaint does not comply with Rule 8, I must
dismiss it without prejudice. Plaintiff is free to file an amended complaint that includes the
allegations that are missing.
If plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint, she should keep it short and to the
point and draft it as if she were telling a story to people who know nothing about her
situation. In particular, she should include all of the allegations in her original complaint
and add new allegations that would allow someone reading the complaint to answer the
following questions:
•

When did the incident with the other employee occur and what happened?

•

When did Koreck issue the write-up, what did it say and what
consequences did plaintiff suffer as a result?

•

Why does plaintiff believe that Koreck disciplined her because of her age and not
for some other, nondiscriminatory reason?

•

When and how has plaintiff been “mistreated” after receiving the write-up,
who mistreated her and why does she believe it was because of her age and
not for some other, nondiscriminatory reason?

•

Did plaintiff file a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission? If so, when did she file it, what did it say and
what was the outcome?

If plaintiff’s amended complaint satisfies Rule 8, I will consider the merits of her claims.

4

ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Jackie Donald’s complaint is DISMISSED without
prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Plaintiff may have until June 21, 2018
to file an amended complaint that complies with Rule 8. If plaintiff does not file an
amended complaint by June 21, 2018, the clerk of court is directed to close this case.
Entered this 1st day of June, 2018.
BY THE COURT:

/s/
___________________________
BARBARA B. CRABB
District Judge

5