# Parker v. Magna Seating, Inc.

> District Court, M.D. Tennessee · March 5, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10436306

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** March 5, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10436306

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining the role of courts is not “to ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro se litigants” or to “advis[e] litigants as to what legal theories they should pursue”
- holding the screening procedure established by § 1915(e) also applies to in forma pauperis complaints filed by non-prisoners

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION

ANTHONY PARKER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) NO. 1:20-cv-00003
v. )
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
MAGNA SEATING, INC., ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE FRENSLEY
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Anthony Parker, a Tennessee resident, filed a pro se complaint against Defendant
Magna Seating, Inc. (“Magna Seating”) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and
Tennessee law. (Doc. No. 1). He also filed an application to proceed in this Court without
prepaying fees and costs. (Doc. No. 2). Both are now before the Court.
I. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The court may authorize a person to file a civil suit without paying the filing fee. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(a). Plaintiff is 61 years of age, unemployed, and has no significant assets. While Plaintiff’s
listed monthly income exceeds expenses, what he describes as income is comprised of a $440.00
monthly unemployment payment plus temporary assistance from family members. (Doc. No. 2 at
5). Further, Plaintiff reports no significant discretionary expenses. (Id. at 4). It therefore appears
from Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application that he cannot pay the full $400.00 filing fee in
advance without undue hardship. Accordingly, the application will be granted.
II. INITIAL REVIEW OF COMPLAINT
The Court must conduct an initial review of the complaint and dismiss any action filed in
forma pauperis if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997) (holding the
screening procedure established by § 1915(e) also applies to in forma pauperis complaints filed
by non-prisoners), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007).

A. Standard of Review
In reviewing the complaint, the Court applies the same standard as under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470–71 (6th Cir. 2010). Thus,
“a district court must (1) view the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and (2) take
all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Tackett v. M & G Polymers, USA, LLC, 561 F.3d 478,
488 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Gunasekera v. Irwin, 551 F.3d 461, 466 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations
omitted)). The Court must then consider whether those factual allegations “plausibly suggest an
entitlement to relief,” Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009)), that rises “above the speculative level,” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The Court need not accept as true “unwarranted factual

inferences,” DirectTV, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Gregory v. Shelby
Cty., 220 F.3d 433, 446 (6th Cir. 2000)), and “legal conclusions masquerading as factual
allegations will not suffice,” Eidson v. Tenn. Dep’t of Children’s Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th
Cir. 2007).
“Pro se complaints are to be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted
by lawyers, and should therefore be liberally construed.” Williams, 631 F.3d at 383; Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976)). Even under this
lenient standard, however, pro se plaintiffs must meet basic pleading requirements and are not
exempted from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Martin v. Overton, 391
F.3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 2004); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989); see also Young
Bok Song v. Gipson, 423 F. App’x 506, 510 (6th Cir. 2011) (explaining the role of courts is not “to
ferret out the strongest cause of action on behalf of pro se litigants” or to “advis[e] litigants as to
what legal theories they should pursue”).

B. Factual Allegations
Liberally construing the complaint and drawing the necessary reasonable inferences, the
Court has identified the following factual allegations. In 2015, Plaintiff was diagnosed with
cervical spinal stenosis and a lesion of the right ulnar nerve. (Doc. No. 1 at 3 & Ex. 3). He had
numerous tests, injections, physical therapy, and surgery to reduce the pain caused by these
conditions. (Id. at 3).
In August 2018, Magna Seating hired Plaintiff as a third shift supervisor, and the parties
executed an employment agreement. (Id. at 2). On October 16, 2018, Plaintiff reported pain in his
right arm to his shift manager. (Id. at 3). He then communicated with Magna Seating human
resources manager Steve Falter and production manager George Johnson on a weekly basis

concerning his medical status. (Id.) Plaintiff was subsequently asked harassing personal and
invasive medical questions concerning his doctor’s note, and Magna Seating eventually denied
that note as an unacceptable excuse. (Id. at 3-4 & Ex. 5). Despite Plaintiff being an employee in
good standing and under a doctor’s care, Magna Seating intentionally denied him paid-for medical
insurance and short-term disability coverage after November 21, 2018. (Id. at 3-4 & Ex. 7, 9). As
a result, Plaintiff could not receive proper medical care and suffered emotional distress and
physical pain. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) Plaintiff believes that Magna Seating retaliated against him for
reporting his preexisting medical condition. (Id. at 3).
Steve Falter terminated Plaintiff on December 5, 2018. (Doc. No. 1 at 3). Plaintiff believes
that Magna Seating terminated him because of his medical condition. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff made an
ethics complaint on Magna Seating’s internal hotline, and he subsequently communicated with
Magna Seating’s investigator Rob Eastwood. (Id. at 4 & Ex. 10). The complaint alleges that Magna

Seating breached the employment agreement in connection with Plaintiff’s termination by not
giving him a severance payment, vacation days, and medical insurance. (Id. at 3-4 & Ex. 4).
C. Discussion
1. Federal Claims
The complaint reflects that Plaintiff intends to bring federal employment law claims against
Magna Seating. Before reviewing the merits, the Court first addresses the timeliness of these
claims.
A plaintiff must file a civil lawsuit within 90 days of receiving the right-to-sue notice from
the EEOC demonstrating the exhaustion of administrative remedies. See McGhee v. Disney Store,
53 F. App’x 751, 752 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a)) (discussing the 90-day

requirement in the context of the ADA). There is a presumption that a plaintiff “receives the
EEOC’s [right-to-sue] letter by the fifth day after the indicated mailing date.” Fuller v. Mich. Dep’t
of Transp., 580 F. App’x 416, 424 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks
Museum of Art, Inc., 209 F.3d 552, 557 (6th Cir. 2000)). Plaintiff has satisfied the administrative
exhaustion requirement by submitting the right-to-sue notice that he received from the EEOC.
(Doc. No. 1-8). The right-to-sue notice is dated January 7, 2020, so the Court presumes Plaintiff
received it by January 12, 2020. (Id.) The Court received the complaint on January 21, 2020, nine
days later. (Doc. No. 1 at 1). Accordingly, the Court considers Plaintiff’s federal claims to be
timely for the purpose of initial review.
Turning to the merits, the complaint specifies that Plaintiff intends to bring claims under
the ADA.1 (Id. at Doc. No. 1 at 3). The complaint also reflects that the discriminatory conduct of
which Plaintiff complains is termination of employment and retaliation.2 (Id. at 4). Finally,
Plaintiff alleges that Magna Seating discriminated against him based upon his disability –

specifically, the medical conditions of cervical spinal stenosis and lesion of the right ulnar nerve.
(Id. at 3).
The ADA prohibits covered employers from discriminating against a “qualified individual
on the basis of disability” with regard to hiring, advancement, training, termination, employee
compensation, and “other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
For a claim of disability discrimination, Plaintiff must plausibly allege that: (1) he is disabled; (2)
he is otherwise qualified for the position, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) he
suffered an adverse employment action; (4) Magna Seating knew or had reason to know of his
disability; and (5) his position remained open while Magna Seating sought other applicants or
replaced him. Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., 942 F.3d 308, 320 (6th Cir. 2019); Ferrari

v. Ford Motor Co., 826 F.3d 885, 891-92 (6th Cir. 2016). However, at this stage this is not an
onerous burden, Wallace v. Edward W. Sparrow Hosp. Ass’n, 782 F. App’x 395, 404 (6th Cir.
2019), and Plaintiff need not establish all of these elements. Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S.

1 The complaint contains a passing reference to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (See Doc.
No. 1 ¶ 5). However, Plaintiff neither identifies that he is suing under this statute on the civil cover sheet,
nor sets forth a Title VII cause of action. Further, while the complaint notes that Plaintiff is an African-
American male (Doc. No. 1 at 2), it does not allege any facts that would support a claim of discrimination
on the basis of race or color under Title VII. In addition, the complaint notes that Plaintiff is “over age 40”
(see id.), but Plaintiff does not invoke the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). Accordingly,
the Court does not construe the complaint to include Title VII or ADEA claims.

2 While Plaintiff does not explicitly use the term “retaliation” in the body of the ADA cause of action,
he clearly makes this allegation earlier in the complaint. (See Doc. No. 1 at 3, 7-8). Liberally construing the
complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff intended to bring both ADA discrimination and retaliation claims.
506, 512 (2002). So long as the complaint alleges that Plaintiff was disabled or regarded as disabled
and otherwise qualified for his position, Plaintiff need only “give [Magna Seating] fair notice of
what his claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Morgan v. St. Francis Hosp., No. 19-5162,
2019 WL 5432041, at *1 (6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2019) (ADA discrimination claim) (citing Swierkiewicz,

534 U.S. at 512; Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).
To state an ADA retaliation claim, Plaintiff must allege plausible facts that: (1) he engaged
in activity protected under the ADA; (2) Magna Seating knew of that activity; (3) Magna Seating
took an adverse action against him; and (4) there was a causal connection between the protected
activity and the adverse action. Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025, 1046 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing
A.C. ex rel. J.C. v. Shelby Cty. Bd. of Educ., 711 F.3d 687, 697 (6th Cir. 2013)); Bullard v. Fedex
Freight, Inc., 218 F. Supp. 3d 608, 618-19 (M.D. Tenn. 2016). Protected activity under the ADA
includes “oppos[ing] any act or practice made unlawful by [the ADA]” or “ma[king] a charge,
testif[ying], assist[ing], or participat[ing] in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing
under [the ADA].” 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).

Liberally construing the factual allegations set forth above and taking them as true, as
required at this stage of the proceedings, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated ADA claims
against Magna Seating sufficient to survive initial review. Regarding the discrimination claim,
Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that he is disabled, was considered by Magna Seating to be qualified
for his shift supervisor position, brought his medical conditions to the attention of Magna Seating
as early as October 2018 and provided doctor’s notes, and suffered one or more adverse
employment actions, including termination in December 2018 and refusal to pay contractually-
guaranteed severance, as a direct result. This is sufficient for this claim to proceed.
Plaintiff has also stated a colorable ADA retaliation claim. Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged
that Magna Seating retaliated against him for seeking excused absences from work by harassing
him, denying him medical coverage and short-time disability payments, and rejecting doctor’s
notes. Seeking accommodations for a disability is a protected activity under the ADA. A.C., 711

F.3d at 698 (citations omitted); Hurtt v. Int’l Servs., Inc., 627 F. App’x 414, 422 (6th Cir. 2015).
In addition, liberally construed, the complaint alleges that Magna Seating retaliated against
Plaintiff for making a complaint to the corporate ethics hotline by breaching the employment
contract and not providing separation benefits under the employment agreement. The Court infers
that this complaint encompassed discrimination under the ADA, therefore making it protected
conduct. 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a). At this early stage of the case, therefore, the Court finds that
Plaintiff’s ADA retaliation claim may proceed.
2. State Law Claims
The complaint also reflects that Plaintiff intends to bring two state law claims against
Magna Seating. First, Plaintiff brings a breach of contract claim. Plaintiff’s employment agreement

is governed by Tennessee law. (See Doc. No. 1-4 at 4). To plead a breach of contract under
Tennessee law, Plaintiff must plausibly allege: “(1) the existence of an enforceable contract, (2)
non-performance amounting to a breach of the contract, and (3) damages caused by the breached
contract.” Bridgestone America’s, Inc. v. Int’l Bus. Mach. Corp., 172 F. Supp. 3d 1007, 1019
(M.D. Tenn. 2016) (quoting Nw. Tenn. Motorsports Park, LLC v. Tenn. Asphalt Co., 410 S.W.3d
810, 816-17 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Plaintiff has alleged that
he entered into an employment agreement with Magna Seating; Magna Seating did not perform
under that agreement by failing to pay him severance and provide medical insurance; and he
suffered financial and physical damages as a result. This is a colorable breach of contract claim.
Plaintiff also brings a claim under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”), which
is sometimes referred to as Tennessee’s “Whistleblower Act.” See Williams v. City of Burns, 465
S.W.3d 96, 110 (Tenn. 2015). As relevant here, the TPPA includes a claim for “discharge in
retaliation for refusing to remain silent about illegal activities, usually referred to as

‘whistleblowing.’” Id. A cause of action for retaliatory discharge under the TPPA is somewhat
unique in that, as a matter of law, it definitively accrues on the day of discharge from employment
and must be brought within one year. See Setzer v. First Choice Lending Servs., LLC, No. 3:17-
CV-00147, 2018 WL 735194, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 6, 2018) (holding that TPPA claim not
brought within one year of discharge from employment is “time-barred as a matter of law”), aff’d,
No. 18-5192, 2018 WL 7500477, at *3 (6th Cir. Sept. 10, 2018); Gibson-Holmes v. Fifth Third
Bank, 661 F. Supp. 2d 905, 912 (M.D. Tenn. 2009) (same) (citing Farmer v. Tenn. Dep’t of Safety,
228 S.W.3d 96, 98 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007)).
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff was terminated on December 5, 2018. (Doc. No. 1 at
3). Plaintiff’s TPPA cause of action therefore accrued on that date and had to be brought by

December 5, 2019. However, the complaint was not filed until January 21, 2020. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s TPPA claim is time-barred and must be dismissed. See, e.g., Harper v. Government,
No. 15-2502-STA-cgc, 2016 WL 737947, at *2 & n.16 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 23, 2016) (adopting
report and recommendation sua sponte dismissing pro se plaintiff’s TPPA claim upon initial
review as untimely because the claim was not brought within one year of the plaintiff’s alleged
date of discharge from employment).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained above, Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (Doc. No. 2) will
be granted. The Court concludes that Plaintiff has stated non-frivolous ADA discrimination and
retaliation claims and a breach of contract claim, and these claims shall proceed. The TPPA claim
will be dismissed.
An appropriate order will be entered.

WILLIAM L. CAMPBEI L. J
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10436306. Public record. Not legal advice.