Opinion
Civ. No. 14-7650 (KM)
04-06-2016
CHANTEL SIVELLS, Plaintiff, v. SAMS CLUB, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
The plaintiff, Chantel Sivells, pro se, has brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, and sex; retaliation; defamation; pain and suffering; and wrongful termination. Before the court is the motion (ECF no. 16) of the defendant, Sams Club, to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The applicable standard is well known and will not be repeated here. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
The handwritten complaint was filed on the standard short-form complaint form. Defendant, to be sure, has a point. The only detail the complaint gives as to discrimination is "Men treated differently, hispanics treated better." (ECF no. 1 at ¶ 10) Attached to the complaint, however, are voluminous exhibits. Within them are letters and other writings giving a bit more detail. (See exhibits to complaint, ECF no. 1-1 at p. 30 (letter of 11/27/2013); p. 35 (letter of 1/24/2014.)
In response to the defendant's motion, Ms. Sivells filed a seven page statement. (ECF no. 17) This, at least, alleges "5. Unfair Treatment/Discrimination - Schedules given to male and Hispanic employees that I asked for. Was told by manager that I wasn't fair to give what I requested before them to me. Men never forced to work through their 15 minute or meal breaks ever or Hispanic employees." (Id. ¶ 5) The plaintiff claims that male managers "teamed up" against her (id. at p.3), and that "Hispanics were given schedules and promotions" (id. at p. 5) She also alleges retaliation for complaining of unfair treatment. Various violations of company policies are alleged; these would not be independently actionable, but could be relevant to a claim of retaliation or to demonstrate that the reasons given for firing (use of profanity) were a pretext. Apparently the plaintiff has been reinstated to her position, but this is unclear.
A pro se pleading will not be held to the same standards as those drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007). Reading the pleadings leniently, I see enough here to warrant at least some discovery.
Accordingly,
IT IS this 6th day of April, 2016
ORDERED as follows:
1. The motion to dismiss (ECF no. 16) is DENIED.
2. The plaintiff's statement (ECF no. 17) shall be deemed to be a supplement to her Complaint.
3. The defendant shall file an Answer within 21 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a).
/s/_________
KEVIN MCNULTY
United States District Judge