Bernath v. Decorative Paint, Inc.
3:22-cv-00702
| N.D. Ohio | Oct 19, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Sandra Bernath (born ~1962) worked for Decorative Paint, Inc. (DPI) as a scheduler from ~2005 until her termination on September 3, 2020.
- Bernath alleges the scheduler role required use of electronic programs; she received a positive performance review and a raise in Fall 2019 and underwent training for technological changes.
- DPI terminated Bernath for "lack of proficiency with computer skills," specifically Microsoft Excel; Bernath asserts she had no prior formal discipline or coaching.
- Bernath alleges she was replaced immediately by Brandi LaRoe, who she alleges was under 40 when hired and performed the same scheduler duties.
- Procedural posture: DPI moved to dismiss Bernath’s first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6); Bernath moved for leave to file a second amended complaint adding factual detail about qualifications and her replacement.
- The court granted leave to amend (Rule 15), found the proposed allegations would survive a 12(b)(6) challenge, denied the motion to dismiss as moot, and scheduled a status conference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Amendment adds facts curing alleged pleading defects; Rule 15 favors leave | Amendment is futile because claims still fail to state an ADEA claim | Granted: no undue delay/prejudice; futility argument rejected at this stage |
| Whether Bernath sufficiently pleaded she was qualified | Positive reviews, recent raise, prior training, and explicit allegation of qualification show fitness for role | Admissions about Excel and lack of training show she was unqualified for scheduler role | Plaintiff adequately pleaded qualification; factual dispute inappropriate at 12(b)(6) |
| Whether Bernath sufficiently pleaded replacement by someone under 40 | Names replacement (Brandi LaRoe), alleges LaRoe was under 40, hired same month, same duties | Complaint lacks exact age or specific age gap between Bernath and LaRoe | Sufficient: naming replacement and alleging under-40 status plausibly pleads replacement outside protected class; court infers ~19-year gap |
| Whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was warranted | Complaint (as amended) states plausible ADEA claim | Initial motion argued pleading deficiencies and lack of nexus (latter largely abandoned) | Denied as moot after granting leave to amend; proposed second amended complaint survives 12(b)(6) challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (Rule 15 leave-to-amend standard; leave freely given absent factors like undue delay or futility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must permit reasonable inference of liability)
- Loc. 783, Allied Indus. Workers of Am., AFL-CIO v. Gen. Elec. Co., 471 F.2d 751 (6th Cir. 1973) (court discretion in granting leave to amend)
- Riverview Health Inst. LLC v. Med. Mut. of Ohio, 601 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2010) (applying 12(b)(6) standard to assess futility of proposed amendment)
- Blizzard v. Marion Tech. Coll., 698 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 2012) (age-difference guidance: ten years or more is generally significant)
- Smith v. Bd. of Trustees Lakeland Cmty. Coll., 746 F. Supp. 2d 877 (N.D. Ohio 2010) (positive evaluations can support allegation of qualification)