Usry v. Ingles Markets
1:12-cv-00163
S.D. Ga.Nov 26, 2012Background
- Plaintiff James Joseph Usry, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, files an employment discrimination suit in the Southern District of Georgia.
- Plaintiff names Ingles Markets, Earl Inglett, and Richard Cooper as defendants based on alleged harassment and a hostile work environment at Ingles Markets (July 1999–May 24, 2011).
- Plaintiff alleges repeated crude remarks and hostile conduct by Keeling and defendants, with a single termination event on May 24, 2011.
- Plaintiff asserts disability-related remarks and racial discrimination in EEOC filings; he seeks lost wages from firing.
- Court screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA discrimination claim viability | Usry asserts disability-based discrimination. | Defendants argue no concrete disability or discriminatory conduct tied to the disability. | Dismissed: no plausible disability discrimination claim. |
| ADA hostile work environment claim | Hostile environment due to disability and harassment. | Harassment shown but not tied to a protected disability affecting terms of employment. | Dismissed: no affirmative basis for a hostile environment claim under the ADA. |
| Title VII disparate treatment based on race | White plaintiff alleges race-based discrimination. | Plaintiff fails to show similarly situated comparators or qualification. | Dismissed: no prima facie case of disparate treatment. |
| ADA retaliation claim | Usry opposed unlawful practices and faced retaliation. | Claim too vague; no protected expression linked to firing. | Dismissed: no cognizable retaliation claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (2002) (pleading standards do not require heightened specificity but must state plausible claims)
- Twombly, Bell Atl. Corp. v., 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (claims must be plausible, not merely plausible in theory)
- Iqbal, Ashcroft v., 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (plausibility standard applied to complaints)
- Morisky v. Broward County, 80 F.3d 455 (11th Cir. 1999) (discrimination claims require plausible facts)
- Randall v. Scott, 610 F.3d 701 (11th Cir. 2010) (conclusory allegations not entitled to presumption of truth)
- Burke-Fowler v. Orange County, 447 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2006) (elements of Title VII disparate treatment claims)
- EEOC v. Joe's Stone Crab Inc., 220 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2000) (requires qualification and adverse action plus comparators)
- Stewart v. Happy Herman's Cheshire Bridge, Inc., 117 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 1997) (retaliation prima facie elements under the ADA)
- Thomas v. Cooper Lighting, Inc., 506 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2007) (prima facie retaliation standard under the ADA)
- Harsman v. Food Lion, Inc., 893 F. Supp. 1092 (S.D. Ga. 1995) (hostile environment analysis groundwork)