United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MARC T. ERNST, Plaintiff,
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant.
OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, [Doc. No.
11]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion, and Defendant has filed a
Reply to the Opposition. For the reasons set forth below, the
motion is granted in part and denied in part.
filed this action against Defendant alleging violations of
the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2615 (FMLA),
and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 12111-12117 (ADA). Plaintiff filed his First
Amended Complaint on October 5, 2017. Defendant filed its
Amended Motion to Dismiss on January 26, 2018.
Amended Complaint alleges the following facts and background:
was employed by Defendant from September 2009 until January
has a disability as defined by the ADA. Prior to October
2016, Plaintiff informed Defendant of his disability. In
October 2016, Defendant granted FMLA leave to Plaintiff to
accommodate Plaintiff's disability.
December 28, 2016, Plaintiff informed Defendant of an
upcoming medical procedure related to his disability. The
same day, Plaintiff requested that Defendant grant him FMLA
leave in February 2017 for that medical procedure. Plaintiff
“qualified for FMLA.” On January 4, 2017,
Defendant discharged Plaintiff on the grounds that three
months earlier, Plaintiff had worked six minutes over his
shift time. During the preceding three months, Defendant
never notified Plaintiff about the six minute overage.
filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC against
Defendant and received his notice of right to sue on August
moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief could be granted.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a party may move to dismiss a claim
for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.” The notice pleading standard of Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to give “a short and plain
statement showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief.” To meet this standard and to survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotations
and citation omitted). This requirement of facial
plausibility means the factual content of the plaintiff's
allegations must “allow[ ] the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged.” Cole v. Homier Distrib.
Co., 599 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Courts must assess the
plausibility of a given claim with reference to the
plaintiff's allegations as a whole, not in terms of the
plausibility of each individual allegation. Zoltek Corp.
v. Structural Polymer Group, 592 F.3d 893, 896 n. 4 (8th
Cir. 2010) (internal citation omitted). This inquiry is
“a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. The Court must
grant all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving
party. Lustgraaf v. Behrens, 619 F.3d 867, 872-73
(8th Cir. 2010).