She should know who she requested leave from and who denied her. For instance, Plaintiff should know when she requested FMLA leave and for what purpose. In that case, court observed: While we do not mandate the pleading of any specific facts in particular, there are certain details the Plaintiff should know and could properly plead to satisfy the plausibility requirement. See 671 F.3d at 1194 (concluding that "a plaintiff must include some further detail for a claim to be plausible"). Khalik illustrates the principle that a complaint may be so devoid of details or context that dismissal is warranted. At the same time, however, to "establish a prima facie case in her complaint, the elements of each alleged cause of action help to determine whether Plaintiff has set forth a plausible claim." Id. In response to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff correctly observes that "t this stage in the case, is not obligated to set forth a prima facie case for each element," citing Khalik v. The complaint alleges that plaintiff was 67 years old at the time of the complaint, and that (of the seven inspectors) one was his age, and the others (including his supervisor) were "younger." He also alleges that during his employment, he heard age-related comments while employed at the County. The court agrees with defendant that the Amended Complaint simply supplies no plausible basis for a claim that the county discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of age. The plaintiff's age discrimination claim stands in marked contrast. The court accordingly denies the motion to dismiss as to plaintiff's disability discrimination claim. ( Id.)Ĭollectively, the allegations in the Amended Complaint, along with reasonable inferences drawn from them, assert that Maugans was disabled because he had suffered two strokes, the condition affected his ability to work, he requested accommodation, and defendant was aware of this condition and not only refused to accommodate, but terminated him because of his condition. Further, the complaint alleges that, rather than grant the accommodations, the defendant "immediately terminated" him. Immediately after alleging his strokes, plaintiff states that defendant "denied accommodations for disability," indicating clearly that plaintiff does allege he is disabled. The plaintiff's statement that he "requested reasonable accommodation that would have allowed him to continue to work," ( id., at ¶ 11) inherently implies that plaintiff could perform his job with such accommodation. An examination at Wesley Hospital "determined that had a hemorrhagic stroke." (Dkt. Maugans then states that he "had a stroke at work" on August 19, 2016, and a second stroke four days later. He was hired on May 23, 2016, and promoted to a level II inspector in July of 2016. According to the complaint, plaintiff worked for the county as a residential building inspector. The court denies the motion to dismiss as to Maugans' claim of disability discrimination, finding that, although the information contained in the Amended Complaint is limited, it nonetheless supplies notice of the key elements of a plausible claim. "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. The defendant contends the Amended Complaint is simply too conclusory to be plausible under the standards recently set forth by the Supreme Court, providing that "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. § 1630.2(o)(3) because Maugans was not a qualified individual with a disability. In support of its motion, the County first argues that (1) there is insufficient information to determine that Maugans was actually disabled or regarded as disabled, (2) that he has not shown he was otherwise qualified to perform the work of building inspector, (3) that he has not alleged he was terminated because of his disability, and that as a result (4) it was not required to provide an individualized assessment under 29 C.F.R. 12), which the court finds should be granted in part and denied in part. The County then filed a second Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 6), Maugans, now represented by counsel, filed an Amended Complaint on Augadding the claim that Maugans had been subjected to age discrimination. After the County filed its first Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 1) filed on Jthat the County terminated his employment when he sought accommodation following a stroke. Maugans, who worked for Sedgwick County as a residential building inspector, alleged in his initial pro se Complaint (Dkt. Defendant Sedgwick County, Kansas has moved to dismiss the age and disability discrimination claims raised in the present action by plaintiff Bryce Maugans.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |