The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHERRY TAYLOR, ]
]
Plaintiff, ]
]
v. ] Civ. No.: 2:22-cv-01252-ACA
]
TONY REDDICK, et. al, ]
]
Defendants. ]
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Cherry Taylor, proceeding pro se, filed this employment
discrimination action against the Gadsden City Board of Education, Tony Reddick
(Superintendent of Gadsden City Schools), Cory Skelton (Chief School Finance
Officer), Franchesca Rivera Igou (Accounting Department), and Sarah Collins
(Secretary). (Doc. 1 at 1–3). Ms. Taylor, an African American who suffers from
depression, anxiety, and a sleep disorder, is a teacher for the Gadsden City Board of
Education. (Doc. 1-1 at 2). In September 2021, she sought leave to enroll in the sick
bank because she had developed “some health issues” that required her to be out of
work for several months. (Id.). The Board denied her request on the ground that the
enrollment period had closed. (Id.). But in the same month, it allowed the enrollment
of a white teacher who did not have sufficient leave accrued to qualify for the sick
bank. (Id.). Ms. Taylor asserts that this was race discrimination, in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2) (“Title VII”), and
disability discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12112(a). (Doc. 1 at 3, 5).
Ms. Taylor moves to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 2). Having reviewed
Ms. Taylor’s in forma pauperis affidavit, the court finds that she is indigent and
GRANTS the motion. Because Ms. Taylor is proceeding in forma pauperis, the
court must screen her complaint for whether it states a claim. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Ms. Taylor’s complaint does not and cannot state a Title VII or
ADA claim against any of the individual defendants, so the court DISMISSES them
from this case WITH PREJUDICE. Ms. Taylor’s complaint also does not state a
disability discrimination claim against the Board, so the court DISMISSES that
claim WITHOUT PREJUDICE. However, Ms. Taylor’s Title VII race
discrimination claim against the Board will proceed.
I. DISCUSSION
When a plaintiff seeks to proceed in forma pauperis, § 1915(e) requires the
court to dismiss the case “if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . .
fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard as a dismissal
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mitchell v. Farcass, 112 F.3d 1483,
1490 (11th Cir. 1997). Under that standard, the court must dismiss the case if the
plaintiff fails to plead “a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009). “[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement
to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation
marks and alteration omitted).
1. Individual Defendants (Mr. Reddick, Ms. Skelton, Ms. Igou, and
Ms. Collins)
“The relief granted under Title VII is against the employer, not individual
employees whose actions would constitute a violation of the Act.” Busby v. City of
Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991). The same is true of the ADA. Albra v.
Advan, Inc., 490 F.3d 826, 830 (11th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, Ms. Taylor’s Title
VII and ADA claims against Mr. Reddick, Ms. Skelton, Ms. Igou, and Ms. Collins
fail as a matter of law. The court DISMISSES those defendants WITH
PREJUDICE.
2. Gadsden Board of Education
Ms. Taylor also asserts her Title VII and ADA claims against the Gadsden
Board of Education. (Doc. 1 at 1). The allegations in her complaint suffice to state a
claim of race discrimination under Title VII. (See doc. 1-1 at 2). But the allegations
do not suffice to state a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA. (See id.).
Although Ms. Taylor lists her disabilities and her belief that the Board’s actions were
motivated by her disabilities, she provides no facts from which the court could draw
the inference that the Board denied Ms. Taylor’s request to enroll in the sick bank
because of her disabilities. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. To state a claim for relief, the
plaintiff must provide “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-
me accusation.” Id. Accordingly, the court DISMISSES Ms. Taylor’s ADA claim
against the Board WITHOUT PREJUDICE. But if Ms. Taylor wishes to amend
her ADA claim against the Board by providing non-conclusory facts in support of
that claim, she may do so on or before November 15, 2022.
II. CONCLUSION
The court GRANTS Ms. Taylor’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
Based on the court’s § 1915(e) screening, Ms. Taylor cannot state a claim
under Title VII or the ADA against Mr. Reddick, Ms. Skelton, Ms. Igou, and
Ms. Collins, so the court DISMISSES those defendants WITH PREJUDICE.
Ms. Taylor also does not state a claim of ADA discrimination against the Board, so
the court DISMISSES the ADA claim against the Board WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. If Ms. Taylor wishes to amend her complaint to provide more facts
in support of her ADA claim against the Board, she may do so on or before
November 15, 2022. If Ms. Taylor amends her complaint to remedy the defects in
her ADA claim against the Board, she must not attempt to re-assert the ADA or Title
VI claims against the individual defendants.
Ms. Taylor’s Title VII race discrimination claim against the Board will
proceed. Because Ms. Taylor is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court must
perform service on her behalf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). However, Ms. Taylor’s
complaint does not provide an address for the Gadsden Board of Education.
Accordingly, the court ORDERS Ms. Taylor to file with the court a notice giving
the address at which the Gadsden Board of Education may be served. Ms. Taylor
must file the notice on or before November 1, 2022. The court cautions
Ms. Taylor that failure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of
her case for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
DONE and ORDERED this October 25, 2022.
Lo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE