United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
E. LARSEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the court is a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint
as to defendant Jackson County, Missouri, on the ground that
because Jackson County was not plaintiff’s employer,
plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Jackson County
upon which relief can be granted. For the following reasons,
defendant’s motion will be granted.
states in her complaint that she was employed by
“Jackson County, Missouri and the Sixteenth Judicial
Circuit Court - Family Court as a Youth Worker.”
2. Defendant Jackson County, Missouri is a first class
constitutionally-chartered county organized under the
constitution and laws of the State of Missouri, an employer
located at 415 East 12th Street, 2nd Floor, Jackson County,
Kansas City, Missouri 64133. Jackson County funds 70% of the
positions at the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit Court. It is
organized and exist[s] under the laws of the State of
Missouri. . . .
3. . . . On the website at http://16thcircuit.org,
on July 17, 2013, on July 17, 2013, under “FAQ”
it indicates that a person who works for the Sixteenth
Judicial Court will be an employee. It further states that
“70% of our positions are funded by Jackson County and
30% are funded by the State of the Missouri. The Court is the
Judicial branch of both County and State government.”
(Complaint, p. 1-2) (emphasis in original).
October 29, 2012, plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination
with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on race, sex and
disability along with retaliation. She received a right to
sue letter; however, the complaint does not indicate whether
plaintiff pursued that claim. Approximately three years
later, plaintiff’s employment was terminated on
September 23, 2015. On October 9, 2015, she filed a charge of
discrimination with the EEOC and the MCHR. On October 20,
2015, the EEOC issued a notice of right to sue after failing
to conclude that information obtained during its
investigation established violations of the law. On October
26, 2015, the MCHR issued a notice of “no right to
sue” on plaintiff’s allegation of sexual
orientation discrimination because sexual orientation is not
protected under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The MCHR
adopted the EEOC’s “investigation summary”
and issued a notice of right to sue on all other allegations.
Plaintiff filed this complaint on January 13, 2016.
attempts to allege retaliation and discrimination based on
her sex, race, sexual orientation, and
18. Plaintiff Teressa Davis suffered a continuous pattern of
retaliation. She was discriminated against because of her
gender, sexual orientation, failing to accommodate her
disability, reporting a claim of child abuse, and discharged
because of prior grievances, exercising her rights and filing
a workmen’s compensation claim, all in violation of the
Missouri Human Rights Act (hereinafter “MHRA”)
Section 213.010, et. seq.
(complaint, p. 5).
3, 2016, defendant Jackson County filed a motion to dismiss
on the ground that plaintiff is not employed by Jackson
County and thus has failed to state a claim against Jackson
County upon which relief can be granted. Defendant also
points out that plaintiff did not mention Jackson County in
her administrative filings with the EEOC or the MCHR. On May
31, 2016, plaintiff filed a response, arguing that “due
to an oversight and clerical error” plaintiff was not
as specific as defendants believe appropriate as far as
stating in the complaint how each party contributed to
plaintiff’s suffering, but plaintiff can amend her
complaint to include a more definite statement. On June 17,
2016, Jackson County filed a reply, reiterating that it was
not plaintiff’s employer.
MOTION TO DISMISS
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should be
granted only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff
can prove no set of facts which would entitle her to relief.
Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C. v. Jeffries, 653
F.3d 755, 764 (8th Cir. 2011); Craig Outdoor Advertising,
Inc. v. Viacom Outdoor, Inc., 528 F.3d 1001, 1023-24
(8th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S.
1136 (2009). In ruling a motion to dismiss, the court is
required to view all facts in the complaint as true. CN
v. Willmar Public Schools, 591 F.3d 624, 629 (8th Cir.
2010); Owen v. General Motors Corp., 533 F.3d 913,
918 (8th Cir. 2008). Although a complaint need not include
detailed factual allegations, “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 ...