Guinn v. Yellow Checker Star, Inc.
2:15-cv-00344
D. Nev.Oct 26, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Bernadette Guinn, proceeding in forma pauperis and pro se, alleges Yellow Checker Star, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by harassing, failing to accommodate, retaliating against, and wrongfully terminating her due to ADD/ADHD and chronic migraines.
- Plaintiff alleges her conditions substantially impair major life activities (including working and concentrating) and that she provided medical documentation of her disabilities.
- The district court previously dismissed Guinn’s original complaint for lack of factual detail but granted leave to amend.
- The Amended Complaint focuses solely on ADA discrimination, failure to accommodate, harassment, and retaliation claims arising from her employment and termination.
- The court screened the amended pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) standards for pro se complaints and concluded the ADA claim was sufficiently pleaded to proceed.
- The court ordered the Clerk to file the Amended Complaint, issue summons, provide USM-285 forms, directed service procedures and deadlines, and set service and certificate-of-service requirements for further filings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Complaint states an ADA claim | Guinn: her ADD/ADHD and chronic migraines substantially limit major life activities, she provided medical documentation, employer failed to accommodate and terminated/retaliated against her because of disability | Yellow Checker Star: (not detailed in opinion) implicitly contest sufficiency of pleading or facts | Court: Amended Complaint sufficiently alleges ADA disability, qualification/accommodation theory, and adverse action; claim may proceed |
| Whether complaint should be dismissed under § 1915(e)(2)/Rule 12(b)(6) | Guinn: pleads enough factual content to raise plausible ADA claim | Defendant: (not detailed) would argue failure to state a claim due to lack of factual detail | Court: applied liberal pro se standards, found allegations adequate and did not dismiss |
| Whether leave to amend was appropriate earlier and whether further amendment is barred | Guinn: previously given leave to amend and complied by filing an amended complaint | Yellow Checker Star: (not detailed) no explicit position in order | Court: since deficiencies could be cured, leave had been given and Amended Complaint is accepted and filed |
| Service and procedural requirements following screening | Guinn: must comply with USM-285, Rule 4(m), and certificate-of-service rules | N/A | Court: ordered Clerk to issue summons, directed plaintiff on service steps and deadlines, and required certificate of service for filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckey v. Los Angeles, 968 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1992) (standard for dismissal under in forma pauperis screening)
- Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolousness standard and piercing complaint’s factual veil)
- Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992) (factual frivolousness when allegations are irrational or incredible)
- Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 1995) (leave to amend after § 1915 dismissal unless amendment cannot cure defects)
- Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221 (9th Cir. 1984) (leave to amend pro se plaintiffs after dismissal)
- Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1987) (liberal construction of pro se pleadings)
- Bruns v. Nat’l Credit Union Admin., 122 F.3d 1251 (9th Cir. 1997) (limits of liberal construction; court may not supply essential elements not pled)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (complaint must contain more than labels and conclusions; plausibility standard)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (1986) (court need not accept conclusory allegations as true)