Rippley v. Teamsters Local 50

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

GLENN RIPPLEY, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 22-CV-2179-SMY

)

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 50, and )

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 525, )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

YANDLE, District Judge:

Plaintiff Glenn Rippley filed this lawsuit pro se, seeking injunctive relief against

Defendants Teamsters Local 50 and Teamsters Local 525 for alleged disability and race

discrimination. This matter is now before the Court for consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for

Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) (Doc. 2).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, an indigent party may commence a federal lawsuit without paying

required costs and fees upon submission of an affidavit asserting the inability “to pay such fees or

give security therefor” and stating “the nature of the action, defense or appeal and the affiant’s

belief that the person is entitled to redress.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently

established his indigence. He has no income and has approximately $800 in his checking or

savings account. As such, the Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs of commencing

his lawsuit. However, the Court’s inquiry does not end there; § 1915(e)(2) requires careful

threshold scrutiny of a Complaint filed by a plaintiff seeking to proceed IFP.

The Court may dismiss a case if it determines the action is clearly frivolous or malicious,

fails to state a claim, or is a claim for money damages against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B); see also Hoskins v. Poelstra, 320 F.3d 761, 763 (7th Cir. 2003). To state a viable

claim, the Complaint must contain allegations that go beyond a merely speculative level. Dewalt

v. Carter, 224 F.3d 607, 611-12 (7th Cir. 2000); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555

(2007).

In the Complaint, “Confidential Witness Affidavit”, and other exhibits (Docs. 1, 1-1, 1-2,

1-3), Plaintiff alleges that he is a member of Teamsters Local 50 and Teamsters Local 525 and

regularly signs up to receive work from these unions. On or about June 8, 2022, representatives

from both unions avoided placing him in jobs because of his handicap – passive aggressive

personality disorder and cancer for which he is required to attend chemotherapy twice a month –

and race. Plaintiff attached a Notice of the Right to Sue from the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission dated September 16, 2022 and asserts original jurisdiction based on

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3). Of note, instead of monetary damages, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief

for treatment by his unions, including removing do not refer letters in his file, stopping verbal

abuse, and honoring “executive order 11246” (Doc. 1-3, p. 1).

The ADA prohibits discrimination by a covered entity “against a qualified individual with

a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the

hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation job training, and other

terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Because labor unions

are “covered entities” under the ADA, union members can bring claims against labor unions for

such violations. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2). Under the ADA, a person is disabled if (1) he has a physical

or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities; (2) has a

record of such an impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. §

12102(1). Discrimination under the ADA can include claims of unequal treatment, failure to

accommodate a disability, or retaliation. Youngman v. Peoria Cty., 947 F.3d 1037, 1042 (7th Cir.

2020) (“Discrimination [under the ADA] can take the form of treating a disabled employee

differently from other workers or failing to make reasonable accommodations to the known

limitations of the employee”); Guzman v. Brown Cty., 884 F.3d 633, 642-643 (7th Cir. 2018)

(describing standard for ADA retaliation claims).

Regardless of whether Plaintiff’s personality disorder or cancer can be considered a

disability at this stage, he pleads that Defendants perceived him as disabled and treated him

differently than other union members. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C). Therefore, the Court finds

that Plaintiff has adequately pleaded an ADA claim. Youngman v. Peoria Cty., 947 F.3d at 1042.

Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately pled a Title VII race discrimination

claim; he alleges that, because of his race, Defendants stopped his placement for potential jobs,

which is sufficient under federal pleading standards. See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c)(2).

As Plaintiff has stated a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII, his

Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), The

Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to prepare and issue, for each named defendant, Form AO 440,

Summons in a Civil Action, to Plaintiff and enclose blank USM-285 forms for each named

defendant. If Plaintiff wishes the United States Marshals Service to serve process in this case, she

shall provide to the United States Marshals Service the summons issued, the appropriately

completed USM-285 forms and sufficient copies of the Complaint for service. Upon receipt of

the aforementioned documents from Plaintiff, and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4(c)(3), the United States Marshal Service is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the Summons,

Complaint and this Order upon the defendants in any manner consistent with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4, as directed by Plaintiff. Costs of service shall be borne by the United States.

IT IS SO ORDERED. fet Coole

DATED: February 6, 2023

STACI M. YANDLE

United States District Judge

Page 4 of 4