Ayers v. Enviro-Clean Servs.

DANE AYERS, Plaintiff, v. ENVIRO-CLEAN SERVICES, INC. and WALLED LAKE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-10314

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

September 8, 2021

OMNIBUS OPINION AND ORDER

STEPHEN J. MURPHY, III United States District Judge.

Plaintiff Dane Ayers sued Defendant Enviro-Clean Services, Inc. for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Michigan's Persons With Disabilities Civil Rights Act ("PWDCRA"). ECF 1 PgID 9-16. Plaintiff also sued Defendant Walled Lake Consolidated School District for violating the PWDCRA. Id. at 13-16. Enviro-Clean moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ECF 23, and the School District moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), ECF 22. Shortly after, Plaintiff's attorneys moved to withdraw from the case due to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. ECF 29; 30. Still, the parties fully briefed the motions. ECF 32; 33; 35-39.

In an omnibus order, the Court granted Enviro-Clean's motion to dismiss the ADA claim because Plaintiff had not timely exhausted his administrative remedies. ECF 40, PgID 605-06. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims and dismissed the claims without prejudice. Id. at 606-07. The Court ultimately denied the motions to withdraw as moot. Id. at 607.

Plaintiff then appealed the omnibus order and the Sixth Circuit vacated the Court's judgment. ECF 47. The Sixth Circuit held that Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and thus timely exhausted his administrative remedies. Id. at 635-36. The Sixth Circuit recently issued a mandate for the case. ECF 48.

Because the Court's omnibus order only ruled on one argument in Enviro-Clean's motion to dismiss, the Court will address the remaining arguments in the motion to dismiss and the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court will also address the motions to withdraw. Because the motions are fully briefed, a hearing is unnecessary. See E.D Mich. L.R. 7.1(f).

BACKGROUND^[1]

Plaintiff is in his mid-twenties and is a former student of Walled Lake Consolidated School District. ECF 1, PgID 4. Plaintiff has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Id.

In April 2016, the Assistant Principal of Plaintiff's former high school, Walled Lake Central, issued a "trespassing letter" to Plaintiff because Plaintiff had entered school property despite not being a student or an employee. Id. at 5-6; see also ECF 23-3, PgID 344-46; ECF 23-10, PgID 403. The letter explained that Plaintiff was forbidden from stepping foot on Walled Lake Central property. ECF 23-10, PgID 403.

Despite the trespassing letter, Plaintiff visited Walled Lake Central again in June 2017 to ask about the hiring process for open jobs. ECF 1, PgID 5. While inside the school, Plaintiff believed that he spoke with an employee who worked for Enviro-Clean or the School District. Id. The employee told Plaintiff to apply for a janitorial position on Enviro-Clean's website. Id.

Plaintiff then applied online for a full-time school cleaning job at Walled Lake Schools. Id. at 6; see also ECF 23-2, PgID 333-36 (Plaintiff's job application). The next day, Enviro-Clean asked Plaintiff to interview for the job. ECF 1, PgID 6. Shortly after that, the Oakland County Sheriff's Department wrote Plaintiff a citation for trespassing on Walled Lake Central property. Id. at 8; see also ECF 23-11, PgID 405. And on the very next day, Enviro-Clean cancelled Plaintiff's interview. ECF 1, PgID 8.

Plaintiff believed that School District employees directed Enviro-Clean to cancel the interview and deny his job application. Id. at 8. Plaintiff also believed that he was qualified for open positions he applied for with Enviro-Clean and that Enviro-Clean denied his job application because of his disability. Id. at 8-9.

The day after Enviro-Clean cancelled Plaintiff's interview Plaintiff was arraigned on the trespassing charge; he pleaded not guilty. ECF 23-12, PgID 410. At the arraignment, a state judge ordered Plaintiff not to "go back to Walled Lake Central." Id. at 412. At trial, Plaintiff was found guilty of the trespassing charge. ECF 23-3, PgID 366. And at sentencing, the state judge prohibited Plaintiff from being on Walled Lake Central property as part of his probation conditions. ECF 2318, PgID 456.

LEGAL STANDARD

I. The Motions Will Be Treated as Motions to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

Ordinarily, the Court cannot consider matters beyond the complaint when it reviews a motion to dismiss. Kostrzewa v. City of Troy, 247 F.3d 633, 643 (6th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). Under Rule 12(d), "[i]f, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the [C]ourt, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment." But the Court may consider public records without converting the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion. Jones v. City of Cincinnati, 521 F.3d 555, 562 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). And "when a document is referred to in the pleadings and is integral to the claims, it may be considered without converting a motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment." Com. Money Ctr., Inc. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 335-36 (6th Cir. 2007).

In Enviro-Clean's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, it attached an April 15, 2016 letter from the Assistant Principal of Walled Lake Central. ECF 23-10, PgID 403. Plaintiff addressed the letter in the complaint. ECF 1, PgID 6. Likewise, Enviro-Clean attached Plaintiff's employment application, ECF 23-2, PgID 333-35, which Plaintiff referenced in the complaint, ECF 1, PgID 8. And the transcripts of state judicial proceedings also attached to Enviro-Clean's motion to dismiss, ECF 23-3; 23-12; 23 18, are public records. Winget v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 537 F.3d 565, 576 (6th Cir. 2008) ("[A] court may properly look at public records, including judicial proceedings[.]") (quoting S. Cross Overseas Agencies, Inc. v. Wah Kwong Shipping Grp. Ltd., 181 F.3d 410, 426 (3d Cir. 1999)). Because these documents are integral to Plaintiff's claims and were mentioned in the complaint or are public records, the Court may consider the documents at the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss stage.^[2]

II. Rule 12(b)(6) Legal Standard

The Court may grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss if the complaint fails to allege facts "sufficient 'to raise a right to relief above the speculative level,' and to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570 (2007)). The Court views the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, presumes the truth of all well-pleaded factual assertions, and draws every reasonable inference in the nonmoving party's favor. Bassett, 528 F.3d at 430.

But the Court will not presume the truth of legal conclusions in the complaint. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). If "a cause of action fails as a matter of law, regardless of whether the plaintiff's factual allegations are true or not," then the Court must dismiss. Winnett v. Caterpillar, Inc., 553 F.3d 1000, 1005 (6th Cir. 2009). To resolve a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court may rely on "exhibits attached [to the complaint] . . . and exhibits attached to [D]efendant's motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the [c]omplaint and are central to the claims." Bassett, 528 F.3d at 430.

DISCUSSION

The Court will first address the ADA claim. After, the Court will address the state law claims.

I. ADA Claim

The ADA prohibits discrimination "against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures[] [and] [] hiring." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). ADA discrimination includes "not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant." Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). A "'qualified individual' means an individual who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." Id. § 12111(8).

The ADA also proscribes "denying employment opportunities to a job applicant [] who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of [the employer] to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the [] applicant." Id. § 12112(b)(5)(B). A "reasonable accommodation" includes "job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, [and] reassignment to a vacant position." Id. § 12111(9)(B).

"As a threshold matter in every disability-discrimination claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) []he is disabled; and (2) []he is 'otherwise qualified for the position despite' [his] disability, either with or without a reasonable accommodation." Williams v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 847 F.3d 384, 391 (6th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). Enviro-Clean did not challenge whether Plaintiff is "disabled" under the ADA. See ECF 23.^[3] The Court will therefore address Enviro-Clean's challenge that Plaintiff was unqualified for the janitorial position.

Enviro-Clean offered several reasons why Plaintiff was unqualified for the job. Enviro-Clean first asserted Plaintiff could not enter Walled Lake Central High School property and thus could not fulfill the job's attendance requirement. ECF 23, PgID 317. Enviro-Clean also asserted Plaintiff would endanger the health and safety of others in the workplace. Id. at 322. Last, Enviro-Clean claimed the Court is barred from hearing the ADA claim under...