Cabera v. Chain

PEDRO W. PAULINO CABERA, Plaintiff, v. FEDEX SUPPLY CHAIN, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21-CV-00048

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

June 15, 2021

(MEHALCHICK, M.J.)

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court is a complaint ("Complaint") filed on January 8, 2021, by pro se Plaintiff Pedro W. Paulino Cabrera against Defendant FedEx Supply Chain. (Doc. 1, at 1). In his Complaint, Plaintiff outlines a series of events pertaining to his wish to transfer departments at his employment due to his prosthesis. (Doc. 1). In addition to his Complaint, Plaintiff attached a Charge of Discrimination ("EEOC Charge"), Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, an Initial Consultation form for a "Pre-Charge Inquiry Español," an evaluation by Integrity Staffing Solutions regarding Plaintiff's physical capabilities, two letters from Orthopedic Associates of Lancaster, a letter from Lancaster Health Center, a disclosure form, and an email from Integrity Staffing Solutions. (Doc. 1, at 3, 4-6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17).

Having conducted the statutorily-mandated screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, but finds that Plaintiff should be afforded leave to file an amended complaint.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 8, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant action against Defendant and filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on January 11, 2021.¹ (Doc. 1; Doc. 2). In his Complaint, Plaintiff describes a series of events involving his desire to switch departments within his employment due to the worsening condition of his prosthesis. (Doc. 1, at 8-9). First, Plaintiff describes an incident from May 15, 2020, where he spoke to a "representative" who required him to check a box stating that "if [he] did not deliver [a report of a diagnosis regarding the pain in his knee then] the agency would take it as a voluntary resignation." (Doc. 1, at 8). Next, Plaintiff explains that he received a letter from his doctor and gave the letter to the department. (Doc. 1, at 9). Upon receiving the letter, "the representative of the agency in the company" questioned Plaintiff about the department to which he would like to be transferred. (Doc. 1, at 9). Plaintiff explains that he then filled out a form demonstrating his wish to be transferred to another department. (Doc. 1, at 9). Plaintiff alleges that he informed the representative that his prosthesis was starting to break due to use and being trampled. (Doc. 1, at 9). Plaintiff also explains that he has continued working during the pandemic and alludes to the company's delay in transferring him to another department. (Doc. 1, at 9). Additionally, Plaintiff provides a "Charge of Discrimination" document that he submitted to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination on the part of his employer in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Actof 1990 ("ADA").² (Doc. 1, at 3). In this document, Plaintiff explains that he requested a transfer to another department due to his disability and "was told that [he] would be transferred once a position became available." (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff also alleges that the security personnel embarrassed, demeaned, and discriminated against him because they required him to show his prosthetic every time that he went through the metal detector when they were already aware of his disability. (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff states that FedEx Supply Chain "discriminate[d] against [him] because of [his] disability, in violation of the [ADA]." (Doc. 1, at 3). However, Plaintiff does not explicitly state the damages he seeks within his Complaint. (Doc. 1).

II. SECTION 1915(E)(2) STANDARD

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is statutorily required to review the complaint of a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis prior to service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). In performing this mandatory screening function, a district court applies the same standard applied to motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Tourscher v. McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a defendant to move to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). To assess the sufficiency of a complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a court must first take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state a claim, then identify mere conclusions which are not entitled to the assumption of truth, and finally determine whether the complaint's factual allegations, taken as true, couldplausibly satisfy the elements of the legal claim. Burtch v. Milberg Factors, Inc., 662 F.3d 212, 221 (3d Cir. 2011). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court may consider the facts alleged on the face of the complaint, as well as "documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice." Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322 (2007).

After recognizing the required elements which make up the legal claim, a court should "begin by identifying pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). The plaintiff must provide some factual ground for relief, which "requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "[T]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus, courts "need not credit a complaint's 'bald assertions' or 'legal conclusions...'" Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation, 114 F.3d 1410, 1429-30 (3d Cir. 1997)). The court also need not assume that a plaintiff can prove facts that the plaintiff has not alleged. Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal. v. California State Council of Carpenters, 459 U.S. 519, 526 (1983).

A court must then determine whether the well-pleaded factual allegations give rise to a plausible claim for relief. "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." Palakovic v. Wetzel, 854 F.3d 209, 219-20 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sheridan v. NGK Metals Corp., 609 F.3d 239, 262 n.27 (3d Cir. 2010). The court must accept as true all allegations inthe complaint, and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom are to be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jordan, 20 F.3d at 1261. This "presumption of truth attaches only to those allegations for which there is sufficient factual matter to render them plausible on their face." Schuchardt v. President of the United States, 839 F.3d 336, 347 (3d Cir. 2016) (internal quotation and citation omitted). The plausibility determination is context-specific and does not impose a heightened pleading requirement. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347.

Additionally, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Thus, a well-pleaded complaint must recite factual allegations sufficient to raise the plaintiff's claimed right to relief beyond the level of mere speculation, set forth in a "short and plain" statement of a cause of action. There is no requirement that the pleading be specific or probable. Schuchardt, 839 F.3d at 347 (citing Phillips v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d at 224, 233-234 (3d Cir. 2008). Rule 8(a) requires a "showing that 'the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)); see also Phillips, 515 F.3d at 233 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 545).

With these standards in mind, pro se documents must "be liberally construed." Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976). A pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Nevertheless, pro se plaintiffs are still subject to the base pleading requirements of Rule 8. Rhett v. NJ State Superior Court, 260 F. App'x 513 (3d Cir. 2008). If acomplaint fails to state a claim, the district court must permit a curative amendment, unless an amendment would be inequitable or futile. Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 108 (3d Cir. 2002).

III. DISCUSSION

A. FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY STATE A CLAIM OF DISCRIMINATION

Plaintiff's complaint, taken as a whole, describes his employer's delay in transferring him to another department even though he had demonstrated a need due to the worsening condition of his prosthetic and the resulting pain he was enduring. (Doc. 1, at 3, 7-9). To bring a claim of employment discrimination, Plaintiff must allege facts which would give rise to disability discrimination under Federal law. See 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (1988) ("ADEA"): 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (1988) ("Title VII"); 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). Plaintiff alleges that he "was discriminated against because of [his] disability, in violation of the [ADA]." (Doc. 1, at 3). Plaintiff's sparse complaint, however, fails to adequately allege sufficient facts to state a...