Marz v. Presbyterian Homes and Services
0:11-cv-00200
D. MinnesotaJun 22, 2011Background
- Marz Jr. was employed by Presbyterian Homes and Services from 2006 to December 2008 and alleges three claims: denial of mental health benefits, wrongful termination, and failure to provide a reasonable ADA accommodation.
- PHS moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claims are untimely or unexhausted and fail to state a plausible claim.
- Marz was on FMLA leave May 14–June 3, 2008; he allegedly sought mental health benefits during the leave and was denied.
- Marz was terminated December 3, 2008; MDHR/EEOC charges were filed May 14, 2009, with MDHR dismissals in August–September 2010 and an EEOC right-to-sue issued October 2010.
- Marz filed suit in Ramsey County District Court on January 7, 2011, which PHS removed to federal court; the court recommends granting dismissal on all claims.
- The court noted exhaustion issues for the ADA claim and timeliness influenced by different statutes of limitations for ERISA/state-law benefits and for wrongful discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of denial of mental health benefits claim | Marz seeks benefits during FMLA leave. | Claim untimely under ERISA or Minnesota law. | Untimely and failing to state a claim. |
| Viability of wrongful termination claim | Termination for following law constitutes wrongful discharge. | Time-barred and not stated as valid claim. | Timeliness and failure to plead validly. |
| ADA exhaustion of administrative remedies | ADA claim arises from denial of accommodation. | Administrative charges did not cover the claimed disability or accommodation. | ADA claim not exhausted; dismissed. |
| Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency of ADA claim | Denial of reasonable accommodation implied. | Conclusive facts insufficient to state a claim. | Claim inadequately pleaded; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; threadbare recitals not enough)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely conceivable)
- Norman v. Schuetzle, 585 F.3d 1097 (8th Cir. 2009) (liberal pro se pleading standard but still requires sufficient facts)
- Kells v. Sinclair Buick-GMC Truck, Inc., 210 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2000) (ADA exhaustion considerations for related claims)
- Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U.S. 454 (U.S. 1975) (tolling when some, but not all, claims require exhaustion)