ADA, no individual liability of supervisor for retaliation
How later courts described this case
- ADA, no individual liability of supervisor for retaliation
- “Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA .. . do not provide for causes of action against defendants in their individual capacities.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:21-cv-491-MOC
APRIL BROWN, )
)
Plaintiff, pro se, )
)
vs. )
) ORDER
LISA BURNS, )
)
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim and Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. (Doc. No. 7). Having considered
the motion and reviewed the pleadings, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES this
action without prejudice.
I. BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff April Brown filed this action on September 17, 2021, naming as the sole
Defendant Lisa Burns, Senior Human Resources Manager for Mecklenburg County, alleging that
Defendant refused to make reasonable accommodations in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2). Plaintiff also brings a
retaliation claim. Plaintiff did not name her former employer Mecklenburg County as a
Defendant. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages totaling $4,408,000. (Id.).
On October 14, 2021, Defendant filed the pending motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint
for failure to state a claim and for insufficient service of process. Plaintiff filed a Response to the
motion to dismiss on October 29, 2021, and Defendant filed a Reply on November 4, 2021.
-1-
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides that a motion may be dismissed for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency of the complaint without resolving contests of fact or the merits of a
claim. Republican Party of N.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). Thus, the Rule
12(b)(6) inquiry is limited to determining if the allegations constitute “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief” pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a)(2). To survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss, factual allegations in the
complaint must be sufficient to “raise a right to relief above a speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Thus, a complaint will survive if it contains “enough
facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570).
For the purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, 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.) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The
Court must draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Priority Auto Grp.,
Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 757 F.3d 137, 139 (4th Cir. 2014). In a Rule 12(b)(6) analysis, the Court
must separate facts from legal conclusions, as mere conclusions are not entitled to a presumption
of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Importantly, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of
action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” (Id.). However, well-pleaded
factual allegations are entitled to a presumption of truth, and the court should determine whether
the allegations plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. (Id. at 679).
-2-
Hil. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Burns must be dismissed because there 1s no
individual liability under the ADA.! See Jones v. Sternheimer, 387 F. App’x 366, 368 (4th Cir.
2010) (“Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA .. . do not provide for causes of action against
defendants in their individual capacities.”); Silk v. City of Chicago, 194 F.3d 788, 797 n.5 (7th
Cir. 1999) (ADA, no individual liability of supervisor for retaliation); Mason v. Stallings, 82
F.3d 1007, 1009 (11th Cir. 1996) (same). For this reason alone, the Court dismisses this action.”
The dismissal will be without prejudice, however, to Plaintiff to refile her lawsuit against the
proper Defendant, her former employer Mecklenburg County.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, (Doc. No. 7) is GRANTED. The dismissal will be
without prejudice to Plaintiff to refile this action against the proper Defendant (her former
employer Mecklenburg County).
Signed: December 7, 2021
i )
Korine.
Max O. Cogburn i yg
United States District Judge Hag Me of
Defendant also contends that Plaintiff did not exhaust her administrative remedies with the
EEOC before filing this action against Defendant. The Court does not address this additional
argument.
In any event, as Defendant notes, Plaintiff did not properly serve Defendant in accordance with
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
-3-