Opinion
Civil Action 6:22-cv-03214-DCC-JDA
12-14-2022
Clara Perez, Plaintiff, v. PPG Industries, Inc., Metokote Corporation and Manpower U.S. Inc., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JACQUELYN D. AUSTIN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by Defendant Manpower U.S. Inc., (“Manpower”). [Doc. 11.] In this matter, Plaintiff alleges wrongful discharge in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). [Doc. 9 at ¶¶ 26-35.] Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants jointly employed Plaintiff at all time relevant to this action. [Id. at ¶ 27.] Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g), D.S.C., all pretrial matters in employment discrimination cases are referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for consideration.
Defendant Manpower filed the instant motion to dismiss arguing that “Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Manpower because she admits that Manpower was not her employer at the time of her termination, and had no involvement in the circumstances leading to her termination.” [Doc. 11-1 at 3.] Manpower argues that “Plaintiff unequivocally alleges that she was employed by PPG, not Manpower, when she was terminated, and that the individuals who terminated her were all PPG employees, not Manpower employees.” [Id.] In response to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff acknowledges that “Defendant PPG was Plaintiff's employer at the time of the termination decision and is the Party that decided to terminate Plaintiff's employment.” [Doc. 16 at 2.] For that reason, “Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant Manpower's Motion to Dismiss as it relates to her claims against Manpower” and advises that Court that she wishes to “move forward with her case against Defendants PPG and Metokote.” [Id.] This motion is, thus, ripe for consideration.
Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears certain that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts which would support her claim and entitle her to relief. When considering a motion to dismiss, the court should “accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and should view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). However, the court “need not accept the legal conclusions drawn from the facts” nor “accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Eastern Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000).
Wrongful Discharge under the ADA
The ADA provides: “No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to ... the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees ... and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). “To establish a claim of disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must prove ‘(1) that she has a disability, (2) that she is a “qualified individual” for the employment in question, and (3) that [her employer] discharged her (or took other adverse employment action) because of her disability.'” Jacobs v. N .C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 572 (4th Cir. March 12, 2015) (quoting EEOC v. Stowe-Pharr Mills, Inc., 216 F.3d 373, 377 (4th Cir. 2000)). The ADA assumes the existence of an employer/employee relationship. It defines an “employee” as “an individual employed by an employer,” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(4), and a “qualified individual” as “an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)(emphasis added). In determining whether two entities are joint employers, this Court considers the factors outlined in Butler v. Drive Automotive Industries of America, Inc., 793 F.3d 404 (4th Cir, July 15, 2015).
Discussion
As noted above, a key element in establishing a prime facie case of wrongful discharge is the existence of an employee/employer relationship. Smith v. CSRA, 12 F.4th 396, 412 (4th Cir. 2021)(“[B]ecause the ADA applies to employers and affords protections to employees engaged in an employment relationship, [Plaintiff] must establish that she was an employee engaged in an employment relationship with [Manpower] to recover under the ADA.”). Defendant Manpower contends, and Plaintiff concedes, that Manpower was not an employer of Plaintiff at the time of her wrongful discharge. Thus, Plaintiff is unable to state a prime facie case of wrongful discharge against Manpower.
Wherefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court recommends that the motion to dismiss [Doc. 11] be GRANTED and Manpower be terminated as a party to this action.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.