Opinion
C. A. 4:23-cv-4875-SAL-KDW
07-09-2024
Daniel Thadd Potts, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Rett Padgett and Justin Dawkins, Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Kaymani D. West, United States Magistrate Judge
This employment-related matter is before the court for issuance of a Report and Recommendation (“Report”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.). Plaintiff began this litigation by filing a Complaint on September 29, 2023. Plaintiff's initial Complaint was completed using the court's “Complaint for a Civil Case” and listed Rett Padgett and Marley Engineered Products as Defendants. ECF No. 1. Marley Notes, ECF No. 1-3. That Complaint includes a claim brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and names Rett Padgett and Justin Dawkins (collectively “Defendants” or “Individual Defendants”). Marley Engineered Products is not included as a Defendant in the Complaint. Plaintiff listed Rett Padgett and Justin Dawkins on the summons form he provided. ECF No. 17. The court authorized service of the Complaint on Padgett and Dawkins. ECF No. 16. On February 22, 2024, Defendants Padgett and Dawkins filed a Motion to Dismiss the entire Complaint, arguing no ADA-based claims could be stated against the individuals named as Defendants. ECF No. 20. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. ECF No. 25. Defendant filed a Reply. ECF No. 26. Having considered the parties' filings and applicable law, the undersigned recommends Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, be granted, and Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. It is further recommended that Plaintiff be given a reasonable opportunity to amend his Complaint.
Plaintiff paid the $402 filing fee to initiate this action. ECF No. 1.
Although Defendants refer to the October 27, 2023 Complaint as an “Amended Complaint,” the court considers it the operative “Complaint.” ECF No. 1-2.
I. Legal standard
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). When ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court “must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Nonetheless, the court “need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs., Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). The court need not accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009), or “legal conclusions drawn from the facts.” Monroe v. City of Charlottesville, 579 F.3d 380, 385-86 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
“In deciding whether a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss, a court evaluates the complaint in its entirety, as well as documents attached or incorporated into the complaint.” E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 448 (4th Cir. 2011). The court may consider such a document, even if it is not attached to the complaint, if the document “was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint,” and there is no authenticity challenge. Id. at 448 (quoting Phillips v. LCI Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999)).
II. Plaintiff's Complaint
The “Complaint for Employment Discrimination” form included several lists from which Plaintiff was to indicate what statute provided the jurisdictional basis of his federal suit and what sort of discriminatory action he was alleging. In completing the form Complaint Plaintiff indicates he is bringing this employment-related action pursuant to the ADA, alleging discrimination in the form of “Termination of [his] employment” and “Failure to accommodate [his] disability.” Compl. 3-4. Plaintiff identifies the two named Defendants as Rett Padgett, HR Director, and Justin Dawkins, Plant Manager. He uses the same address for them as the address he uses to identify their employer: Marley Engineered Products. Id. at 2-3.
Plaintiff indicates the discriminatory acts took place between June 25 and September 21, 2022. He identifies his “disability or perceived disability” as “shifts in mood, energy, activity levels, concentration.” Compl. 4. To provide the facts in support of his Complaint Plaintiff refers to an attachment called “Marley Notes” and dated October 25, 2023. ECF No. 1-3. Construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, he alleges the following:
• Plaintiff was hired by Marley Engineered Products in September 2021. “As part of the hiring process, [he] filled out the [form] about [his] disability, it made very clear that [he] had a disability.” Plaintiff indicates he has a copy of “their request for this paperwork.” (No such document was attached to the Complaint.).
• Plaintiff recalled he had positive working relationships with prior supervisors, including Alex Bertolo, Guy Mulee, and “Terrylynn.” He received positive input regarding his performance while working for these supervisors.
• Dawkins began working around June or July (presumably of 2022). Plaintiff indicated Dawkins gave him a negative mid-year review and placed him on a “PIP” (performance improvement plan). Plaintiff described Dawkins as being “biased toward bad marks.”
• Plaintiff described his “two week PIP” as having been “poorly written and [having] a broad, confusing scope.”
• Plaintiff indicated he met weekly with Dawkins to discuss the PIP and for Dawkins to “tell [him] how bad it was going.” Plaintiff indicated he had been making progress on the PIP and had completed some of the items listed in it.
• Dawkins fired Plaintiff several days after their third meeting regarding the PIP.ECF No. 1-3. Plaintiff indicates he was denied access to his laptop and his office after he was terminated so he did not have copies of some documents referenced. Id.
Plaintiff indicates he exhausted administrative remedies by filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on March 28, 2023. He indicates he received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on June 29, 2023. Compl. 5. He does not provide copies of these documents.
No challenge concerning exhaustion or timeliness is before the court.
III. Analysis
A. No ADA-based individual liability
Defendant seeks Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint on the ground that liability under the ADA does not attach to individuals such as Dawkins and Padgett. Def. Mem. 4 (citing numerous cases, including Baird ex rel. Baird v. Rose, 192 F.3d 462, 472 (4th Cir. 1999); Ackerman v. Graziano, No. CV 2:19-1811-RMG-KFM, 2022 WL 2068830, at *11 (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2022) (“It is well-settled that individuals are not liable for ADA violations.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:19-CV-1811-RMG, 2022 WL 1638770 (D.S.C. May 24, 2022), and other cases from the Fourth Circuit and the District of South Carolina).
Plaintiff's brief opposition to the Motion to Dismiss does not discuss the case law or legal principle set out by Defendant. ECF No. 25. Rather, Plaintiff first indicates he was “unaware” of the law set out by Defendant that the “‘ADA does not attach to individuals.'” Id. at 1. Plaintiff seems to concede this legal point and asks to “change liability to Marley Engineered Products.” Id. Plaintiff then includes several paragraphs offering more detail as to how he believes Dawkins violated laws. Id. at 1-2. Finally, Plaintiff submits his case should not be ended because the “records needed to present [his] legal argument are not available to [him]” and will not be provided to him by Defendants. Id. at 2.
The only Defendants named and served in the operative Complaint are individuals: Padgett and Dawson. No allegations of any sort are raised against Padgett. Based on the well-settled law in the Fourth Circuit, the ADA does not allow for individual liability for defendants such as Padgett and Dawson. E.g., Jones v. Sternheimer, 387 Fed.Appx. 366, 368 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding neither the ADA, Title VII, nor the ADEA “provide for causes of action against defendants in their individual capacities.”); Baird, 192 F.3d at 472; Brooks-Mills v. Lexington Med. Ctr., No. CV 3:17-1849-JMC-PJG, 2020 WL 6218793, at *3 (D.S.C. Jan. 16, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:17-CV-01849-JMC, 2020 WL 5810518 (D.S.C. Sept. 30, 2020) (dismissing ADA claims against individual defendant).
In view of the well-established legal principle that individual liability will not lie for ADAbased claims, and noting no real argument to the contrary by Plaintiff, the undersigned recommends Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, be granted. The ADA-based claims against Defendants Padgett and Dawson should be dismissed.
B. Plaintiff's request to amend his ADA claim to include Marley Engineered Products
Should the district court adopt this Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff's case against Individual Defendants Padgett and Dawson will be dismissed. Nonetheless, as Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and noting the pleading he initially presented to the court for consideration did include Marley Engineered Products as a Defendant (see ECF No. 1), the undersigned also recommends that Plaintiff s request to “change liability to Marley Engineered Products,” ECF No. 25 at 1, be considered a request to present an amended complaint and that such request be granted.
In the event the district court's order considering this Report and Recommendation does permit Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint, he should remain mindful that ADA-based claims brought against employers are subject to statutory requirements of administrative exhaustion. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) (Title VII); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA adopts procedures set forth in § 2000e-5(e)). Further, to establish a viable failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must set out facts that could support a plausible claim against defendant. Absent direct evidence, a plaintiff may plead a plausible claim by setting out facts from which it could be determined that the employer discriminated against the employee based on his disability in violation of the ADA. Typically, this includes the pleading of facts that could support that (a) plaintiff was disabled, (b) the employer had notice of plaintiff's disability, (c) plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his position with a reasonable accommodation; and (d) the employer refused to make such accommodation. See generally, Cowgill v. First Data Techs., Inc., 41 F.4th 370, 378 (4th Cir. 2022). To present a potentially viable claim a plaintiff must set out more than general legal conclusions; he must set out factually allegations in support. While a pro se complaint is liberally construed it must include more than conclusory statements to state a claim. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 677-78; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Rather, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is plausible on its face, and the reviewing court need only accept as true the complaint's factual allegations, not its legal conclusions. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79.
Should the District Judge permit Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint she may wish to engage the undersigned in providing Plaintiff with appropriate forms to do so.
IV. Conclusion and recommendation
For the reasons set forth above, it is recommended that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, be granted and Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. Further, it is recommended that Plaintiff be given a reasonable opportunity to present an amended complaint.
Of course both parties will have an opportunity to file any objections to this Report and Recommendation as explained in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Plaintiff should wait for the District Judge to issue its Order regarding this Report and Recommendation and the pending Motion to Dismiss before attempting to submit any amended complaint.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. “[I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must ‘only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.'” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4thCir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post Office Box 2317 Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).