United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
W. SIPPEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on review of pro se
plaintiff's second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2). For the following reasons, the Court will
dismiss without prejudice plaintiff's claims against the
individual defendants and will order process to issue on
defendant Ameren U.E.
December 14, 2017, plaintiff filed her original complaint,
alleging she was discriminated against under the American
with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12101, et seq. (“ADA”), on
the basis of disability. Upon initial review under §
1915(e), the Court granted plaintiff's motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. The Court found, however, that because
plaintiff had not alleged a causal connection between her
disability and her termination, she had not alleged
sufficient facts to state a plausible claim of disability
discrimination under the ADA. See ECF No. 5. The
Court ordered her to amend her complaint.
January 17, 2018, plaintiff submitted an amended complaint.
The Court found the amended complaint was subject to
dismissal because plaintiff did not list the defendants she
sought to sue or the federal law she alleged was violated.
See ECF No. 8. Again, the Court ordered plaintiff to
amend her complaint. On February 22, 2018, plaintiff
submitted her second amended complaint on the Court-provided
plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court is
required to conduct an initial review of the second amended
complaint and to dismiss it if it is frivolous, malicious, or
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e). A plaintiff must demonstrate a
plausible claim for relief, which is more than a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Id. at 678. “Determining whether a complaint
states a plausible claim for relief [is] a context-specific
task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense.” Id. at
brings her second amended complaint under the ADA, naming as
defendants Ameren U.E., Diana Dewitt, Ed Willhite, and Steven
Manasco. Plaintiff alleges she worked for defendant Ameren
U.E. for twenty-eight years. She states she was discriminated
against because of her mental disability and was subjected to
continual harassment between January 2013 and April 2016.
Plaintiff lists several incidents of discriminatory conduct
between 2006 and 2016, including her eventual termination on
April 12, 2016. Plaintiff has submitted with her second
amended complaint her EEOC amended charge of discrimination
and the EEOC's right-to-sue letter. Plaintiff has timely
filed this case.
establish disability discrimination under the ADA, plaintiff
must allege she (1) is disabled within the meaning of the
ADA, (2) is a qualified individual under the ADA, and (3) has
suffered an adverse employment action because of her
disability. See Hill v. Walker, 737 F.3d 1209, 1216
(8th Cir. 2013). Having carefully reviewed and liberally
construed plaintiff's second amended complaint, the Court
finds plaintiff has stated a plausible claim against
defendant Ameren U.E. under the ADA, and will order the Clerk
to issue process on the complaint.
plaintiff has stated a plausible claim against defendant
Ameren U.E., plaintiff's claims against the individual
defendants are subject to dismissal. There is no individual
liability for supervisors under Title I of the ADA. See
Walsh v. Nev. Dep't of Human Res., 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); Davis v. Kimbel Mech. Sys., Inc.,
2106 WL 8737495 *2 (W.D. Ark. Sept. 16, 2016). As a result,
defendants Diana Dewitt, Ed Willhite, and Steven Manasco
cannot be held personally liable for violations of the ADA,
and the Court will dismiss these defendants from the
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk shall
issue process or cause process to issue on plaintiff's
second amended complaint as to defendant Ameren U.E.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall not issue
process or cause process to issue as to defendants Diana
Dewitt, Ed Willhite, and Steven Manasco because, as to these
individuals, the second amended ...