Paschal v. Doctors Associates, 4:17-cv-01635

Pro se plaintiff Curtis H. Paschal, a disabled veteran, alleges on March 6, 2017, at a Subway in Niles, Ohio a white female customer used racial slurs toward him and followed him; store employees observed but did not intervene.
Plaintiff alleges emotional harm and seeks money damages under Title II of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000a et seq.) for discrimination at a place of public accommodation.
Defendants are Doctors Associates (the Subway brand owner) and Subway Restaurants; complaint does not plead corporate involvement beyond naming Doctors Associates.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing plaintiff failed to satisfy the Title II pre-suit notice requirement and failed to state a plausible claim against the corporate defendants.
Court found plaintiff did not allege he gave written notice to the appropriate state or local authority (Ohio civil rights commission) as required by 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(c), depriving the court of jurisdiction.
The court alternatively held the complaint failed to plausibly plead Title II liability against the named defendants and noted Title II does not provide the money damages plaintiff seeks.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court has jurisdiction under Title II absent pre-suit written notice to state/local authority	Paschal asserts Title II claim in federal court without alleging such notice	Defendants: §2000a-3(c) requires written notice to state/local authority and 30-day wait before federal suit	Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; plaintiff did not allege required notice
Whether the complaint states a plausible Title II discrimination claim against corporate defendants	Paschal: conduct at Subway and employees’ inaction demonstrate discrimination by defendants	Defendants: conduct was by a customer; complaint lacks facts linking corporate liability or discriminatory policy/practice	Court: Complaint fails to plausibly connect defendants to discriminatory conduct; dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6)
Whether pro se status relaxes pleading requirements sufficiently to survive dismissal	Paschal relies on liberal construction of pro se pleadings	Defendants: legal standards still require plausible factual allegations	Court: Liberal construction applies but does not relieve basic pleading requirements; conclusory allegations insufficient
Whether plaintiff may recover money damages under Title II	Paschal seeks compensatory damages for mental anguish	Defendants: Title II remedies are limited; no money damages available	Court: Title II provides only declaratory/injunctive relief; money damages not available; requested remedy unavailable

United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592 (6th Cir. 1994) (distinguishes facial and factual jurisdictional attacks)
Watson v. Fraternal Order of Eagles, 915 F.2d 235 (6th Cir. 1990) (Title II pre-suit notice requirement is jurisdictional)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (courts need not accept legal conclusions as true)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)