Carter v. Esperanza et al, No. 3:2019cv00007 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 2/1/19. (hnw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERTS OFFICK ta.S.DIST.COURT ATROANOKE,VA FILED FEB -j 2219 IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRJCT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGN A JUL BK CHARLOTTESVILLE DIVISION DuDLEx CLERK E C ERK TA SH IBA CA RTER , CivilAction No.3:19CV00007 Plaintiff, M EM ORANDUM OPINTON ESPERANZA,aSupervisoratBM S,eta1., By:Hon.Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Defendants. TashibaCarter,proceedingpro K ,comm encedthisaction byEling aform complaintunder . TitleVIIoftheCivilRightsof1964 (çsr fitleVII''),42U.S.C.jj2000eto2000e-17,againstthree individualsemployed by BM S. Theplaintiffhasnotpaidthefilingfeebutwillbegranted leave toproceedLq formapaupedsforpurposesofinitialreview ofhercomplaint. Forthefollowing reasons, the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. j1915(e)(2)(b)(ii). Backzround The plaintiT s complaint indicates thatshe was hired to perform com mercialclenning servicesforBM S. TieplaintiY ssupervisorwasanindividualnnmedEspernnza.*'Theplaintiff alleges that she was the only one in her group of employees who was Estold whatto do''by Carter v. Esperanza et al Doc. 3 Espernnza,even though the plaintiffSçdidn'tneed to betold.'' Compl.2,Dkt.N o.2. W hen the plaintiffcomplained to Espernnza,the supervisoradvised herthatthe otheremployeeshad been working forthecompany longerand did notrequireasmuch instm ction. Theplaintiffconstrued *Theplaintiffonly identifesthedefendantsbytheirflrstnames. Dockets.Justia.com Esperanza'scomm entstosuggestthattheplaintiffwasçtstupid.'' Id. Theplaintifffurtheralleges thatEspernnzayelled ather,talkedtoherin Ednasty ways,''lockedheroutofahousekeepingcloset, andpreventedherfrom usingclenningsupplies. JZ Theplaintiffreported Esperanza'sbehaviorto am anagernnm ed M arteen. Thereafter,an area managernam ed Coretta came by to evaluate one ofthebuildingsin which theplaintiffwas working. The plaintiffallegesthatCoretta also tried to show herhow to do herjob. On a subsequentoccasion,the plaintiff notified a supervisorthatshe was going to be late to work. Although the plaintiffwasonly lateby eleven m inutes,the supervisorlGdocked''the plaintifffor being twenty m inuteslate. Id.8. Theplaintifffiled a form com plaintagainstEspernnza,M arteen,and Coretta on January 30,2019,along with a Sr ismissal and N otice of Rights''letter from the Equal Employm ent Opportunity Com mission. In response to being asked to state what relief she is seelcing,the plaintiffindicatesthatsheçswould liketobestress9ee.'' Id.10. Standard ofR eview Under28U.S.C.5 1915(e),which governstqformapauperisproceedings,thecourthasa mandatorydutyto screeninitialfilings. ErilineCo.S.A.v.Johnson,440F.3d 648,656-57(4th Cir.2006). Thecourtmustdismissacaseççatanytime''ifthecourtdetenninesthatthecomplaint çtfailstostateaclaim onwhichreliefmaybegranted.'' 28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Thestandardsforreviewing a complaintfordismissaltmderj 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)arethe snme asthose Which apply when a defendantm oves fordismissaltmder FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6). De'Lonta v.Anaelone,330 F.3d 630,633 (4th Cir.2003). Thus,in reviewingacomplaintunderthisstamte,thecourtm ustaccepta11well-pleaded factualallegations 2 astrue and view the complaintin the lightm ostfavorable to the plaintiff. Philips v.PittCtv. M em.Hosp.,572F.3d 176,180(4th Cir.2009). Tosurvivedismissalforfailmetostateaclaim, û:acomplaintmustcontain sufscientfactualm atter,acceptedastrue,to Sstateaclaim forreliefthat isplausibleonitsface.''' Ashcroftv.Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009)(quotingBellAtl.Coro.v. Twombly,550U.S.544,570(2007:. Discussion Asindicatedabove,Carterliled aform com plaintdesignated forpro K plaintiffswho wish to pursue a claim tm derTitle VII. However,ST itle VIIdoesnotguarantee a happy workplace, only onefreefrom tmlawfuldiscrimination''on thebasisofaprotected trait. Hartsellv.Duplex Prods..Inc.,123 F.3d766,773 (4th Cir.1997);seealso42 U.S.C.j2000e-2(a)(çtItshallbean tmlawf'ulemploymentpractice foran employer...to discrim inate againstany individualwith respectto (her)compensation,terms,conditions,orpdvilegesofemployment,becauseofsuch individual'srace,color,religion,sex,ornationalodgin(.)''). Becausetheplaintifrscomplaintis devoid ofany indication thattheplaintiffwastreated differently on the basisofherrace,color, religion,sex,ornationalorigin,the complaintfailsto statea claim llnderTitleVII. Additionally,even iftheplaintiffhad alleged suffk ientfactsto supportaviable claim of discrim ination,Espernnza,M arteen,and Coretta could notbe held individually liablesincethey are nottheplaintiY stçemployer''forpup osesofTitleVII. See Lissau v.Southem Food Serv.. Inc.,159F.3d177,180(4th Cir.1998)(holdingthatsupervisorsareççnotliableintheirindividual capacitiesforTitleV1Iviolations'). Conclusion ' Forthereasonsstated,thecourtwillgranttheplaintic smotion forleaveto proceedLq fonna pauperis. However,hercomplaintwillbe dismissed withoutprejudice,pm suantto 28 U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Clerk isdirected to send copiesofthismem orandllm opinion and theaccompanying ordertotheplaintiff DATED:This'I.W dayofFebruary, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 4
]]>
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.
