Cheatham v. Augusta-Richmond County Georgia, No. 1:2016cv00104 - Document 14 (S.D. Ga. 2017)
Court Description: ORDER denying 4 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 01/09/2017. (thb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Cheatham v. Augusta-Richmond County Georgia Doc. 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION * SANITA CHEATHAM, * * Plaintiff, * CV 116-104 * AUGUSTA-RICHMOND * COUNTY * GEORGIA, * Defendant. ORDER Presently dismiss. the before Plaintiff, City of ("FMLA") the Court Sanita Augusta, is Defendant's Cheatham, violated the alleges Family motion that Defendant, Medical and the Americans with Disabilities Act to Leave ("ADA") Act when it took adverse action against her after she took leave to undergo medically argues necessary that application sufficient Because Eleventh of the facts Eleventh municipalities, facts surgery. to state to Amendment FMLA and state Amendment and Defendant's because a sovereign that claim does Plaintiff has to immunity Plaintiff plausible immunity motion not failed bars to under the apply to alleged a plausible claim for relief, dismiss the the plead ADA. local sufficient Court DENIES Defendant's motion. Dockets.Justia.com FACTS Defendant hired Plaintiff in Officer at its 911 Call Center, maintained their a working relationship Defendant that Defendant demoted At Shortly would need Plaintiff as a Communications and for six years the parties relationship. soured. she 2008 off point, however, Plaintiff after time and some informed undergo surgery, to reduced her pay. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant demoted her because she required time off to tend to multiple her days Defendant medical issue. off between she had knew that the parties' formal write-up Defendant's nothing about in claims work that force by differs. she requested 2014 and that She also problem. together lapsed without any Defendant Unsurprisingly, claims was major that problems reprimand to demotion from a of Defendant. one write-up or stemming June ongoing medical Plaintiff s that medical six years Plaintiff's least claims and ongoing reprimand recollection did issue at also or March an alleges She related change in it and knew that Plaintiff. to a it It reduction technology that lessened the need for Plaintiff's position. STANDARD "To survive sufficient to relief a motion factual matter, that is to U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 556 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). dismiss, a accepted as plausible 556 OF REVIEW on its (quoting complaint true, to face.'" Bell Applying contain ^state Ashcroft Atl. this must Corp. standard a v. v. claim Iqbal, Twombly, requires a two-part the test. See plaintiff rather than whether has mere those relief. Id. id. stated legal facts at at 679. First, specific the facts conclusions. might plausibly Court asks whether supporting Id. give a Second, rise to claim it a asks right to 680. The first prong of the inquiry requires that the plaintiff plead "factual reasonable content inference that that allows the the court defendant misconduct alleged." Id. at 678. is to draw the for the liable While the Court must accept as "true all of the allegations contained in a complaint," it must not "accept as true allegation." will discovery." facts that Once from mere and the Court legal to allow the id. whether relief." states a it at plausible at claim specific facts give rise relief . doors allegations "Determining for "bare 679. factual accept those 679. factual and assert Id. plausibly a "unlock the must specific must they Id. to misconduct. the as conclusions plaintiff defendant's separates couched plaintiff The conclusions, "determine complaint the conclusion Generalized not See "show" entitlement legal Id. allegations" of a . as true to an whether . [is] a a context specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." facts they cannot be merely must allow the plausible. Id. at consistent Court 678. to with the infer Thus, that facts Id. Well-pleaded alleged misconduct; such which misconduct was show the only possibility of misconduct are not enough. must allege facts that push conceivable to plausible." Finally, while a claim plaintiff precision' each element of a claim, complaint ^contain the recovery under some Inc. Stephens, v. cover does fact' all either every 683 (11th Cir. "across the line from viable Inc., or elements legal 500 have to or "allege allege a ^with it is still necessary that a direct material not element inferential necessary theory.'" F.3d 1276, 2007)(quoting Roe v. Aware Woman Ctr. 678, The complaint Id. at 683. ^specific respecting to the Id. allegations to Fin. Sec. 1282-83 for Choice, sustain Assur., (11th Inc., a Cir. 253 F.3d 2001) ) . DISCUSSION A. FMLA Claim Defendant's Supreme Court's Maryland, 132 first argument decision S.Ct. 1327 in for dismissal Coleman (2012), makes asserts Court Appeals of it immune from suits for Defendant argues that it, like the State, by Eleventh Amendment immunity. the v. money damages under the FMLA self-care provision. of that Specifically, is protected from suit Defendant is mistaken. Sovereign immunity is a principle of power. It originates from the idea in English common law that the Crown could not be sued in its own courts without its consent. U.S. 706, 715 (1999). The king could not Alden v. be Maine, 527 sued without his consent because "all jurisdiction implies superiority of power," and the king was the supreme power. Thus, subject specifically, himself to himself or, more only the king could his courts. Id. While sovereign immunity in American jurisprudence commonly connected with the Eleventh Amendment, the federal structure ratification. Alden, of government 527 U.S. its existence in predates at 713. is the amendment's In the founding era, the American people universally agreed that every State enjoyed the privilege federal which of sovereign government were to be was States. to Id. retained at limited 715. and the 713-14. Because enumerated the the powers expansive and the design of the Constitution sovereign Thus, when immunity of the people the several ratified the they did so with the understanding that the States their immunity as design of the Constitution. Merely of the States, eliminate at Constitution, one Id. exercised concurrently with innumerate powers of did nothing immunity. five however, this Georgia, 2 years 419 under the federal Id. at 714. after principle U.S. co-sovereigns was the put (1793), Constitution's to the the test. Supreme ratification, In Court Chisholm v. declared that Article III authorized a private citizen of another state to sue the state of Georgia without its consent. with a vigor commensurate founding generation. Chisholm decision, The the to day the independent after Georgia The country responded the spirit Court Legislature of our announced the passed a bill ''providing decision that would anyone be attempting ^guilty without benefit of clergy, 720-21 (quoting Federalist however, D. Period Id. the Eleventh Amendment, the suit United in law States or shall Constitution p.196 near (1997). unanimity and in Chisholm suffer in Not at 721. death, 527 U.S. at Congress: to be less The outdone, than three The States eventually ratified which provided that: shall equity, the United States not be commenced by Citizens of The Eleventh judicial misread power; the it merely Constitution. American historical sovereign Amendment, people or another evidence informed under the Eleventh Amendment confirmed, immunity as 728-29. Thus, Amendment itself." a but Id. the supporting immunity U.S. Because constitutional to prosecuted however, ratified "The Judicial power construed or Subjects of any Foreign State." the and the voted on and proposed for ratification to the States the Eleventh Amendment. of The 1789-1801, with felony enforce by being hanged.'" Alden, Currie, Congress, months, of to State, Const, did the of against redefine Court rapidity of Constitution's federal that with Amendment it which and the retention State's of design rather than established, principle." one any or by Citizens Supreme the to amend. XI. not Eleventh the extend Alden, 527 "[t]he sovereign U.S. at "sovereign immunity derives not from the Eleventh from at the 728. structure of the original Constitution But neither structure of the the Eleventh Amendment Constitution reject nor the the original principle that sovereign may subject itself to suit by its own consent. may consent to suit by constitutional structure. case when the people state statutes Alden, ratified 527 U.S. the adopting the Fourteenth Amendment, or changes at 755. Fourteenth a States to our Such was the Amendment: "[l]n the people required the States to surrender a portion of the sovereignty that had been preserved to them by the original Constitution, so that Congress may authorize private suits against nonconsenting States pursuant to its § 5 enforcement power." Id. at 756. Thus, "[w]hen Congress enacts appropriate legislation to enforce this Amendment, interests are over States the Constitution." In whether paramount, which Id. Coleman, Congress and Congress otherwise would may be assert an federal authority unauthorized by the (internal citations omitted). the Supreme exceeded Court its answered powers the under the question of Fourteenth Amendment when it attempted to allow money damages suits against states under 1327. The the Court FMLA's self-care provision. held that because the 132 S. Ct. at self-care provision did not "identify a pattern of constitutional violations and tailor a remedy congruent and proportional to the documented violations," it could not properly "abrogate the States immunity from suits for damages under § 5 [of the Fourteenth Amendment]." Id. at 1338. Thus, the Court declared that States are immune from suits provision. for Court municipalities, suit under money Rather, government. 369 not hold, the FMLA's self-care that counties, however, and lesser government sovereign 356, did for provision. that damages Id. The from money damages under the the Supreme Court has immunity Bd. entities does of Trs. (2001) (" [T]he not of Univ. Eleventh were FMLA's second immunity is entities. against which 538 is U.S. important that The a it bars immunity municipal not 456, limit extend of Ala, to v. Amendment an suits does does the (2003) not States State."); to other Jinks of but not at 756 lesser prosecuted Richland unlike its sovereign governmental ("[M]unicipalities, U.S. extend suits v. local 531 527 U.S. against extend of Garrett, principle or self-care units the not corporation arm of 466 to immune consistently declared immunity to units of local government."); Alden, ("The also entity County, States, do not enjoy a constitutionally protected immunity from suit."). This case is a local no different. government and not an Because the City of Augusta is arm of the state, it does enjoy the protections of Eleventh Amendment immunity. is not protected from application of the FMLA. not Thus, it Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss on this count. B. ADA Claim Defendant's provide next sufficient argument facts to is allege that a Plaintiff plausible failed claim to that Defendant discriminated Specifically, against Defendant argues her that sufficiently allege that she either 1) disability or 2) had a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) under the Plaintiff was ADA. fails to perceived to have a The Court disagrees. provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis advancement, of or and or discharge other employment." with disability A essential terms, holds "Disability" of is " (A) substantially limits (B) a record of one such employees, defined action regarded as having this or mental impairment limits activity." 42 U.S.C. Similarly, regulations that under physical or or impairment; establishing prohibited perceived as is and is 42 such one "an individual can of who, perform position that § the such 12111(8). impairment that life activities (C) 42 U.S.C. an being to as § 12102 (1) (A)-(C) . been is further subjected because impairment ; regarded impairment" "has perceived compensation, U.S.C. or chapter hiring, privileges mental or more major having such an impairment . . . ." "[B]eing employee employment physical an the accommodation, desires." a to individual" the or regard conditions, reasonable functions individual of "qualified without in of whether limit a or an actual an to or not major the life § 12102(3)(A). 29 C.F.R. § 1630.4(a)(1), which is a part of the published pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12112, provides that "[i]t is unlawful for a covered entity to discriminate on the basis of disability against a qualified individual in regard to . . . demotion, It defines transfer, "disability" in layoff [or] accordance termination with § . 12102, . . ." but it further states that an individual may make a claim based on any or all of the disability prongs listed in § 12102. person does not have to show an actual substantially limits a major life activity if under the claim that her employer has disability. 29 C.F.R. Moreover, impairment a that she is proceeding regarded her as having a § 1630.2(g)(3). Defendant argues that Plaintiff has no claim because she did not allege that argument fails, she however, had an actual disability. because Plaintiff did not have to allege a disability to make a claim under the ADA. a physical or mental impairment, she was regarded as having employer regarded her as an Plaintiff may allege a record of impairment, impairment. If having an impairment, to provide proof of her disability. Here, Defendant regarded demoted her Defendant's because it she or that claims her she does not have Plaintiff alleges that her as having an impairment. Plaintiff provides specific facts about her medical issues, that she issues, and that Defendant took an adverse employment action very had to take time off to address soon after learning of her need for time off. those medical These allegations are sufficient to state a plausible claim that Defendant regarded Plaintiff as having an impairment and discriminated against her 10 because of her perceived impairment. Thus, Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim under the ADA. Moreover, plausible Plaintiff has claim for being regarded as which determining § limits' that limit it one "that restrict, the in to impairment is not be that meant ^substantially to or disability." 29 strictly C.F.R. include "reaching, . the operation of of the immune life activities." When "the term in favor be limits' a to create major expansive standard"; a or life major and severely activity that life "whether activity an should "the term a ^major' demanding shall not standard for "Major life activities . . . , interacting with others, special normal cell growth . . . ." ^substantially of a major bodily function, system, C.F.R. When determining what "major § 1630.2(i)(2). lifting, 29 demanding a limiting"; life activities" have been impaired, interpreted impairment must significantly not demand an extensive analysis." be an claim of impairment from performing substantially her a the broadly prevent, individual to make "substantially limits," Court not to To have or more major the facts addition disability, construed it in impairment. impairment be "need order a instructs shall coverage"; as if the 1630.2(j) impairment having an qualifies "substantially an alleged sufficient sense . . including function organs and skin; [and] Id^ at § 1630.2 (1) (i)- (ii) . When combined with the lenient factual standard required at the motion to dismiss stage, 11 the broad definition of "substantially limits" gives at this it. a stage for problem litigation, function" as and normal cell under the Plaintiff allegations are was easily crosses it sufficient as standard a set Defendant's motion to dismiss bodily directly substantial forth finds that this claim allow which major cancer of amended related, a Because Court to of days first cancer qualifies lenient the multiple Her operation growth." very miss recovery. "the growth, Therefore, to surgery cell the her and affecting "normal regulation. further. that and limitation required surgery, alleges qualify affects that testing, complaint would the to cross Plaintiff alleges that she had an impairment in the form of medical work of Plaintiff a very low bar in the Plaintiff's to proceed the ADA claim is DENIED. CONCLUSION For the reasons mentioned Defendant's motion to dismiss. ORDER ENTERED January, at above, (Doc. Augusta, the Court 4). Georgia, this /^^ day 2017. HALL ^/STATES DISTRICT JUDGE IERN 12 DENIES DISTRICT OF GEORGIA of
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
