811 F. Supp. 2d 1004
D. Del.2011Background
- Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a civil action asserting employment discrimination and related state-law claims against multiple entities and individuals associated with FPL/NextEraEnergy, Myriad, and Guidant.
- Plaintiff alleges an open-ended contract to work for FPL/NextEraEnergy in Palo, Iowa, with termination on May 25, 2010 after he refused to provide pre-employment medical records.
- There is confusion over the defendants’ proper corporate name; the court will treat FPL/NextEraEnergy (FPL Capital Group, Inc.) as a misnomer and permit amendment to name the correct defendant.
- Myriad and Guidant moved to dismiss; FPL moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction after contested service.
- Plaintiff sought default entries and a default judgment against some defendants, and requested criminal referrals; the court denied default entries for some parties and scheduled show-cause and amendments.
- The court granted several motions to dismiss, dismissed some claims with prejudice, and granted leave to amend specific Title VII, ADA, §1981, §5851, §1514A, §1985 and state-law claims, while ordering service and show-cause for remaining defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over FPL. | Tani argues FPL/NextEraEnergy has minimum contacts with Delaware. | FPL submits it is neither Delaware-incorporated nor present in Delaware; improper service; no minimum contacts. | Lack of personal jurisdiction; FPL/NextEraEnergy dismissed; leave to amend misnomer. |
| Whether the Title VII/ADA claims against Myriad and Guidant survive 12(b)(6). | Plaintiff alleges race and disability discrimination by employers. | Plaintiff fails to plead an employee-employer relationship and essential elements; individual liability under Title VII/ADA unavailable; failure to exhaust remedies for Title VII/ADA claims. | Dismissal of Title VII/ADA claims against Myriad and Guidant; leave to amend certain claims. |
| Whether the state-law fraud, breach of contract, defamation, and related claims survive. | Plaintiff seeks relief on several contract/defamation theories. | Claims lack particularity; insufficient facts to plead elements; misidentification of contracting party. | Dismissal of several state-law claims; leave to amend specified claims. |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies required for Title VII/ADA claims. | Independent contractor status excused exhaustion. | Exhaustion required regardless of contractor status; right-to-sue letter not provided. | Grant of dismissal for failure to exhaust; leave to amend to cure pleading deficiencies. |
| Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1981/1982, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A, §1985, and other federal provisions state a claim. | Claims of racial discrimination, conspiracy, whistleblower protection, and related rights. | Claims inadequately plead facts and do not show state action or cognizable private-rights actions. | Dismissal of §1981, §1982, §1514A (with leave to amend), and §1985 claims; permit amendment for pleading deficiencies. |
Key Cases Cited
- International Business Machines Corp. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 989 F.2d 935 (3d Cir. 1993) (minimum contacts and due process assessment for jurisdiction)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment and minimum contacts test under due process)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely possible; pleading standard clarified)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard applied to pleadings; not mere conclusions)
- Kloth v. Southern Christian Univ., 494 F. Supp. 2d 273 (D. Del. 2007) (serious standards for jurisdiction and pleading in Delaware)