Park v. TD Ameritrade Trust Company Inc., 1:10-cv-02599

Background

Plaintiff Lori L. Park, a pro se filer, seeks Title VII, ADA, and related constitutional claims arising from an alleged discriminatory and hostile work environment between March 17, 2008 and her constructive discharge on June 14, 2010.
The court screened the complaint and directed Park to amend the Title VII complaint on a court-approved form.
The court found no individual liability under Title VII or the ADA for supervisors Moglia and Bradley; claims against them in their individual capacities were superfluous.
Park asserted jurisdiction under Title VII, ADA, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986, and also pendent state-law claims.
The court instructed that the amended complaint must comply with Rule 8 pleading standards and only assert a single federal or state claim per relief.
The court ordered Park to file within 30 days an amended complaint on a Title VII form and warned that failure could lead to dismissal of some claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Moglia and Bradley can be sued in Title VII/ADA claims.	Park asserts liability against supervisors under Title VII/ADA.	Supervisors cannot be sued individually under Title VII/ADA; only employer liability.	Individual liability dismissed; claims must be against employer or in official capacity.
Whether §1981 is properly pled as a basis for jurisdiction.	Park invokes §1981 jurisdiction in her caption.	No clear factual basis or claim under §1981 is pled.	§1981 jurisdiction not properly pled; no viable §1981 claim pleaded.
Whether §1983 claims are cognizable given lack of color of state law.	Park asserts §1983 jurisdiction.	Defendants acted privately, not under color of state law.	§1983 claim improper; no state-actor basis shown.
Whether §1985(3) and §1986 claims are viable.	Park asserts these conspiracy-related claims.	Deprivation under Title VII cannot support §1985(3) claim; no viable §1986 claim.	Dismissed; advise omission in amended complaint.
Whether the pleading form and Rule 8 requirements are satisfied.	Plaintiff seeks to proceed with a consolidated set of claims.	Rule 8 requires simple, concise claims with one relief per count.	Amended complaint must follow Rule 8 with separate claims per relief and concise pleading.
What procedural action the court requires for amending the Title VII complaint.	Park should be allowed to amend.	Amendment required to meet pleading standards.	Park must file an amended Title VII complaint on a court-approved form within 30 days.

Key Cases Cited

Haynes v. Williams, 88 F.3d 898 (10th Cir. 1996) (limits individual liability under Title VII/ADA)
Butler v. City of Prairie VIII., 172 F.3d 736 (10th Cir.1999) (precludes individual supervisor liability under Title VII/ADA)
Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents, 492 F.3d 1158 (10th Cir. 2007) (pleading requirements for federal claims)
Conn v. Gabbert, 526 U.S. 286 (1999) (color-of-state-law requirement for § 1983)
Great American Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Novotny, 442 U.S. 366 (1979) (deprivation of Title VII rights cannot ground § 1985(3) claim)
NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988) (state actors in § 1983 context; private conduct irrelevant)
Monument Builders of Greater Kansas City, Inc. v. American Cemetery Ass'n of Kansas, 891 F.2d 1473 (10th Cir. 1989) (rule for notice and clarity in pleading; Rule 8 considerations)
TV Communications Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062 (D. Colo. 1991) (pleading requirements and purpose of Rule 8)