Patricia Vizi v. Outback Steakhouse
672 F. App'x 168
| 3rd Cir. | 2016Background
- Vizi worked for several months in 2013 at an Outback Steakhouse in Louisiana and alleged discriminatory treatment and termination based on a disability in an EEOC charge; the EEOC did not conclude a violation.
- Vizi filed pro se complaints in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Outback and the EEOC; the first district court dismissed and directed filing in Western District of Louisiana.
- Vizi then filed two additional pleadings in the Western District of Pennsylvania (docketed as a second and third complaint), which the Magistrate Judge treated as successive filings and recommended dismissal for failure to state a claim.
- The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations and dismissed the second and third complaints without leave to amend; Vizi appealed.
- On appeal, the court reviewed whether Vizi’s pleadings adequately pleaded disability discrimination (prima facie elements) and whether restrictions on her future filings were warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether complaint adequately alleges a disability under ADA standards | Vizi alleged prior neck surgery and incidents where supervisors/coworkers referenced her neck/back; contends she was perceived as disabled | Outback/EEOC argued she failed to plead how the surgery substantially limited major life activities or a record/being regarded as disabled | Held: Vizi failed to plead a disability or that she was regarded as disabled; allegations were conclusory and insufficient |
| Whether complaint pleads causation/adverse action tied to disability (prima facie) | Vizi alleged termination and workplace harassment and implies termination was disability-motivated | Defendants argued termination was for performance and pleaded facts do not permit inference of disability-based adverse action | Held: Pleading lacked sufficient factual allegations to infer termination or harassment was because of a disability |
| Whether pleadings met federal notice-pleading standard (Twombly/Iqbal) | Vizi relied on descriptive incidents and labels, but offered few factual specifics tying conduct to disability discrimination | Defendants argued allegations were conclusory and failed to meet Iqbal/Twombly plausibility requirement | Held: Pleadings were conclusory; dismissal for failure to state a claim was appropriate under Twombly/Iqbal |
| Whether district court could restrict Vizi’s future filings | Vizi’s multiple filings should not be precluded; some filings could be appeals or objections | Magistrate suggested future immediate dismissal but such an order is an extreme sanction | Held: Court declined to impose a filing restriction; record did not support enjoining future filings |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (requirement that complaints plead enough facts to state a plausible claim)
- Deane v. Pocono Med. Ctr., 142 F.3d 138 (3d Cir. 1998) (elements of prima facie disability discrimination)
- Geraci v. Moody-Tottrup, Int’l, Inc., 82 F.3d 578 (3d Cir. 1996) (employer must have knowledge of disability for discrimination claim)
- In re Oliver, 682 F.2d 443 (3d Cir. 1982) (stay-of-filing injunctions are extreme and require caution)
- Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1993) (procedural protections and considerations before restricting filings)
- Gov’t of the V.I. v. Mills, 634 F.3d 746 (3d Cir. 2011) (liberal construction of notices of appeal for pro se litigants)
- Sosa v. Alvarez–Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) (UDHR does not create private right of action)
- Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614 (1973) (no federal right to compel criminal prosecution)
- United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171 (3d Cir. 1973) (government discretion in initiating criminal proceedings)