Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Collier v. AT&T Inc.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

September 27, 2017

ANTOINETTE L. COLLIER, Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T, INC., et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          JULIE A. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff Antoinette Collier brings this pro se action against her former employer AT&T, Inc., and several supervisors and employees of AT&T, alleging claims of discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), as well as claims related to her termination, promotion, and disparate treatment. She has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 16). Plaintiff failed to timely respond to this motion, so the Court entered an Order to Show Cause on September 11, 2017, directing Plaintiff to show cause by September 22, 2017, why the motion to dismiss should not be granted as unopposed.[1] Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause on September 18, 2017, urging the Court to deny Defendants' motion to dismiss. The Court has considered Plaintiff's filing and is now prepared to rule. For the reasons described in detail below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.

         I. Standards

         Defendants move to dismiss in part for failure to administratively exhaust, which is jurisdictional. The Court evaluates the jurisdictional motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, must have a statutory or constitutional basis to exercise jurisdiction.[2] A court lacking jurisdiction must dismiss the case, regardless of the stage of the proceeding, when it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking.[3]The party who seeks to invoke federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing that such jurisdiction is proper.[4] Mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are not enough.[5] A court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts under Rule 12(b)(1).”[6]

         Defendants also move to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must present factual allegations, assumed to be true, that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ” and must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”[7] To state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6), “the complaint must give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these claims.”[8] The plausibility standard does not require a showing of probability that a defendant has acted unlawfully, but requires more than “a sheer possibility.”[9] “[M]ere ‘labels and conclusions, ' and ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action' will not suffice; a plaintiff must offer specific factual allegations to support each claim.”[10] Finally, the Court must accept the nonmoving party's factual allegations as true and may not dismiss on the ground that it appears unlikely the allegations can be proven.[11]

         The Supreme Court has explained the analysis as a two-step process. For the purposes of a motion to dismiss, the Court “must take all the factual allegations in the complaint as true, [but] we ‘are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.'”[12] Thus, the Court must first determine if the allegations are factual and entitled to an assumption of truth, or merely legal conclusions that are not entitled to an assumption of truth.[13] Second, the court must determine whether the factual allegations, when assumed true, “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”[14] “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.”[15]

         If the Court on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion looks to matters that were not attached to the complaint or incorporated into the complaint by reference, it generally must convert the motion to a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment.[16] However, the Court may consider documents which are referred to in the complaint if they are central to the plaintiff's claim and the parties do not dispute their authenticity.[17] The Court considers the attachments filed with Plaintiff's Complaint on June 12, 2017, including the administrative charge filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.[18]

         II. Background

         The following facts are construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff.[19] Plaintiff worked for AT&T for over twenty years with no work-related complaints. She worked in the finance and accounts receivable group from April 1, 2013, until on or around February 27, 2017. On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, asserting disability discrimination and retaliation. “AT&T” was the only named respondent in the Charge. In the narrative portion of the Charge, Plaintiff alleged her claim as follows:

I filed EEOC Charge #563-2016-01020 on March 18, 2016. On March 22, 2016, I was informed by management that my request for accommodation was denied and I was placed on a nine month disciplinary notice. On June 29, 2016, I went out on medical leave. I am scheduled to return to work on July 20, 2016. I made contact with management to inform them that I was not going to be at work. I was advised that I would be placed on further discipline when I return to work.
Management advised me that my request for accommodations were denied because the company has already provided me with prior accommodations.
I believe that I was denied reasonable accommodations and disciplined because of my disability and in retaliation for filing an EEOC Charge, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, (ADAAA)[.][20]

         On or about February 27, 2017, Plaintiff accepted a severance package from AT&T and resigned. On March 10, 2017, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue on her July 2016 Charge. On June 12, 2017, Plaintiff filed her Complaint against AT&T and the Individual Defendants. She cites to the following statutes as bases for the Court's jurisdiction: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADA, Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Plaintiff states “[a]ll defendants are being sued in their individual capacity.”[21] She claims that Defendants complained about her work performance as a pretext for discrimination and retaliation based on her previous requests for reasonable accommodation under the ADA, in violation of AT&T's own internal code of ethics.

         In support of her ADA claim, Plaintiff alleged the following wrongful conduct: “termination of my employment, ” “failure to promote me, ” “failure to accommodate my disability, ” “terms and conditions of my employment differ from those of similar employees, ” “retaliation, ” and “harassment.” When asked in the Complaint to identify her disability or perceived disability, Plaintiff responded, “See exhibit [G].”[22] There was no Exhibit G attached to the Complaint. In the form Complaint where Plaintiff was to explain whether Defendant denied her a reasonable accommodation, Plaintiff responded, “Defendant refused to accommodate A.D.A. made threats of being fired, HR, informed plaintiff Collier that she can do what she want, and totally disregard her complaint.”[23]

         III. Discussion

         Defendants move to dismiss on the following grounds: (1) the Individual Defendants are not amenable to suit because they do not constitute Plaintiff's “employer”; (2) Plaintiff did not administratively exhaust all of the claims asserted in her Complaint; (3) Plaintiff did not timely exhaust the remaining claims alleged in the Complaint; and (4) Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that she is a qualified individual under the ADA. The Court agrees that all four grounds asserted by Defendants require dismissal of this action.

         A. Individual Defendants

         The ADA and other employment discrimination statutes cited to by Plaintiff in her Complaint prohibit discrimination and retaliation by an employer or “covered entity” against an employee.[24] These statutes do not permit personal liability suits against individuals who do not meet the definition of employer under these statutes; there is no supervisory liability.[25] Plaintiff has pled no facts in her Complaint that would establish that the Individual Defendants qualify as “employers” under the federal employment discrimination statutes; therefore, the claims against the Individual Defendants must be dismissed.

         B. Administrative Exhaustion

         As to AT&T, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust all of the claims alleged in the Complaint. The ADA requires that a Plaintiff administratively exhaust her claims before filing suit.[26] In the Tenth Circuit, failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a jurisdictional bar to filing suit in federal court.[27] Because exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional requirement, the plaintiff bears the burden of showing exhaustion.[28] To exhaust administrative remedies, a plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with either the EEOC or an authorized local agency and receive a right-to-sue letter based on that charge.[29] The Court must liberally construe the administrative charge to determine whether a particular claim has been exhausted.[30] The inquiry “is limited to the scope of the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow from the discriminatory acts alleged in the administrative charge.”[31]

         Plaintiff submitted her charge on July 14, 2016, so any alleged acts or adverse actions occurring after that date have not been administratively exhausted. There is no way that an administrative investigation could reasonably be expected to include conduct that occurred after the charge was filed. Therefore, the administrative charge could not include any of Plaintiff's claims regarding her buy-out, or any other adverse action that allegedly took place after July 14, 2016. Plaintiff's Charge only captures two claims that AT&T failed to accommodate her under the ADA on March ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.