Franklin v. City of Slidell
936 F. Supp. 2d 691
E.D. La.2013Background
- This is a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal ruling involving the City of Slidell and six City employees (Employee Defendants) and a pro se plaintiff, Troy Franklin, alleging ADA, Title VII, and §1981 claims with state-law claims preserved.
- Plaintiff alleges retaliation and racial and disability discrimination after being relieved of duties following a fitness-for-duty evaluation and medical disclosures.
- Plaintiff sought back/front pay, damages for reputation and costs, punitive damages, and other equitable relief.
- EEOC charge filed December 3, 2010 alleging race and disability discrimination and retaliation; EEOC issued a Right to Sue notice on April 27, 2012.
- City moved to dismiss on August 21, 2012; court granted in part and denied in part, with amendments and stay requests resolved.
- Court later granted amendment of Plaintiff’s complaint by liberal construction of pro se submissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employee Defendants can be sued under Title VII/ADA | Franklin argues Employee Defendants are proper defendants | Individual defendants cannot be liable under Title VII or ADA | Claims against Employee Defendants are dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether City claims of racial discrimination under Title VII/§1981 survive | Discrimination occurred based on race and retaliation | Insufficient pleading of a prima facie case | Racial discrimination claims under §1981/Title VII dismissed without leave to amend; retaliation claim survives at this stage |
| ADA disability discrimination claim against City; and disclosure of confidential medical information under §12112(d) | Disability status and improper disclosure alleged | Need for exhaustion and improper state of pleadings; business-necessity defense raised | Disability discrimination claim allowed to proceed; §12112(d) disclosure claim dismissed for lack of exhaustion and lack of stated injury; business-necessity issue reserved for later |
| Punitive damages against City | Punitive damages available under 42 U.S.C. §1981a | Public entity immune from punitive damages | Punitive damages claim against City dismissed with prejudice |
| Stay of claims against City pending DOJ Right to Sue letter under §2000e-5(f)(1) | NEED for DOJ letter before proceeding against City | Stay possibly required pending DOJ referral | Stay denied; proceedings may continue against City |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (McDonnell Douglas not a pleading requirement; facts suffice for plausible claim)
- Ackel v. Nat’l Commc’ns, Inc., 339 F.3d 376 (5th Cir. 2003) (individuals generally not liable under Title VII)
- Bryan v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., 375 F.3d 358 (5th Cir. 2004) (guides comparison for racial discrimination pleading? (contextual))
- Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2010) (business-necessity exception to ADA fitness-for-duty)
- Conroy v. N.Y. State Dept. of Corr. Servs., 333 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2003) (permissible scope of fitness-for-duty examinations under ADA)
- Yin v. State of Cal., 95 F.3d 864 (9th Cir. 1996) (fitness-for-duty examination may implicate ADA when designed to reveal disability)
- Armstrong v. Turner Indus., Inc., 141 F.3d 554 (5th Cir. 1998) (ADA remedies align with Title VII)
- Okoye v. The University of Texas Houston Health Ctr., 245 F.3d 507 (5th Cir. 2001) (applies to prima facie elements under Title VII/1981)