United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on the filing of plaintiff s
amended complaint, as well as various motions filed by
plaintiff. Because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis
in this matter, the Court is required to conduct an initial
review of the amended complaint and dismiss it if it is
frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a person
immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Upon review
of the amended complaint, the Court finds that plaintiffs
claims against the individual defendants, as well as all
business entities and governmental entities other than
plaintiffs prior employer (Manor Care) should be dismissed.
Plaintiffs claims that are not mentioned in her charge of
discrimination are also subject to dismissal. The Clerk will
be ordered to issue process or cause process to be issued on
Manor Care Health Services as to the remaining claims in
plaintiffs amended complaint.
brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as well as
under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.
§ 12101, et seq (the "ADA").
Plaintiff also appears to allege a state law claim for
retaliatory discharge under the Missouri Workers'
Compensation Act, Mo.Rev.Stat. § 287.780.
amended complaint is difficult to read, however, it appears
that she is alleging claims of race, gender, color, religion,
national origin and ADA/disability discrimination
(retaliatory discharge and failure to provide
accommodations). Plaintiff also appears to be alleging state
"tort liability from state and federal officials."
Plaintiff brings this action against the following
individuals and entities: Manor Care Health Services (her
former employer); Corporate Administrator Linda Mundaman;
Administrator Anita Martinez; Director of Nursing LaShanda
Hill; Director of Nursing Loretta Lovelace; Human Resource
Manager Carol Joette; Claims Administrator Janet Nanto;
Workers' Compensation Department; Tasha Allen, LPN;
Cassandra Blair, LPN; Administrator Kristin Nesser;
Workers' Compensation Manager Robin Bowen; Insurance Co.
of the State of Penn.; Broadspire Services, Inc.; Six
Separate Claims Adjusters at Broadspire Services, Inc.;
Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations;
Various Managers, Directors, Administrators, Supervisors at
the Missouri Dept. of Labor and Industrial Relations;
Missouri Division of Workers' Compensation and various
Commissioners and Judges and workers and legal counsel at the
Division of Workers' Compensation (including court
reporters and mediators); United States Occupational Safety
and Health Administration ("OSHA") and various
workers at OSHA; U.S. Department of Labor and various workers
at the U.S. Department of Labor; plaintiffs former private
attorneys (and staff members) and medical doctors.
attached a right to sue letter to her original complaint from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") dated January 27, 2017. Plaintiff has
additionally attached her charge of discrimination to her
original complaint, which contains background information
relative to her claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c). The
Court incorporates these documents, by reference, into
plaintiffs amended complaint.
charge of discrimination, plaintiff checks the boxes for
race, disability and retaliation. She asserts that she is an
African American female, hired by Manor Care Health Systems
as a Certified Nurse's Aide on October 27, 2010 and
discharged on October 27, 2011. Plaintiff claims she was
injured on the job on August 8, 2011 and is now disabled as a
result of that injury. Plaintiff asserts that she was
terminated in retaliation for filing a workers'
compensation claim, and as a result of her absences from work
which were purportedly caused by her injury. She claims that
after her discharge the retaliation continued when she was
denied access to work records that she needed for her
workers' compensation claim. Plaintiff also asserts that
her employer submitted fraudulent documents related to her
workers' compensation claim. Plaintiff additionally
claims that she was discriminated against by being discharged
and being denied access to her employee records on the basis
of her race and on the basis of retaliation and her
disability in violation of both Title VII and the ADA.
noted above, because plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis in this action, the Court is obligated to review her
pleadings for frivolousness, maliciousness and for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915. The Court is required to dismiss any
claims or defendants where jurisdiction is lacking or relief
cannot be had.
is no individual liability for supervisors under Title VII or
Title I of the ADA. See Walsh v. Nevada Dept. of Human
Resources, 471 F.3d 1033, 1037-38 (9th Cir. 2006)
(collecting cases); see also Alsbrook v. City of
Maumelle, 184 F.3d 999, 1005 n. 8 (8th Cir. 1999);
Bonomolo-Hagen v. Clay Central-Everly Community School
District, 121 F.3d 446, 447 (8th Cir. 1997) (citing
Spencer v. Ripley County State Bank, 123 F.3d 690,
691-92 (8th Cir. 1997) (per curiam)); see Bales v.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 143 F.3d 1103, 1111 (8th Cir.
1998). As a result, all supervisors, management, and
administrators named in this action as defendants cannot be
held personally liable for violations of Title VII and the
ADA, and the Court will dismiss these defendants from the
has not alleged how these individuals, managers or
administrators purportedly engaged in "tort"
activity or fraudulent activity against her. Her conclusory
allegations against these individuals are not entitled to an
assumption of truth and do not state a plausible claim for
relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950-51
(2009). Thus, to the extent she has brought any state law
claims for garden variety "fraud" or
"tort" against these individuals, her claims are
subject to dismissal at this time. Id.
Court will next turn to plaintiffs charge of discrimination
and examine her allegations in her amended complaint against
those alleged in her charge. The Eighth Circuit has
The purpose of filing a charge with the EEOC is to provide
the Commission an opportunity to investigate and attempt a
resolution of the controversy through conciliation before
permitting the aggrieved party to pursue a lawsuit....
Accordingly, the sweep of any subsequent judicial complaint
may be as broad as the scope of the EEOC "investigation
which could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge
Cobb v. Stringer,
850 F.2d 356, 359 (8th Cir.1988)
(quoting Griffin v. Carlin,755 F.2d 1516, 1522
(11th Cir.1985)). Any allegations that exceed the scope of
the plaintiffs EEOC charge "circumscribe the EEOC's
investigatory and conciliatory role, and for that reason are
not allowed." Kells v. Sinclair Buick-GMC Truck,
Inc.,201 F.3d 827, 836 (8th Cir.2000). Failure to
include each type of discrimination asserted in an EEOC
charge is equivalent to a failure to exhaust administrative
remedies with respect to those types of ...