Adefila v. Select Specialty Hosp.

• Decision Date: 07 March 2013
• Docket Number: 1:13CV68
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina
• Parties: CHRISTIANAH O. ADEFILA, Plaintiff, v. SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, Defendant.

CHRISTIANAH O. ADEFILA, Plaintiff,

v.SELECT SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, Defendant.

1:13CV68

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

March 7, 2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Help with Attorney Representation (Docket Entry 7). (See Docket Entry dated Feb. 8, 2013.) For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the instant Motion.¹

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff commenced this action on January 28, 2013, by filing pro se an Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry 1) and a Complaint (Docket Entry 2). The Court denied that Application on the ground that Plaintiff did not qualify for pauperstatus. (Docket Entry 5.)² She then paid the filing fee (see Docket Entry dated Feb. 8, 2013) and filed the instant Motion (Docket Entry 7), as well as an Amended Complaint (Docket Entry 8), whereupon the Clerk issued a Summons as to Defendant Select Specialty Hospital ("Defendant Hospital") (Docket Entry 9).³

According to the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff "began employment with [Defendant Hospital] on May 16, 2012 . . . [and] held the position of a Registered Nurse . . . [when,] [o]n June 25th 2012, . . . the CNO (Chief Nursing Officer) . . . told [Plaintiff] that [she was] fired . . . because [she] left medication in the patient's room while [she] took the patient for a procedure in [sic] another floor." (Docket Entry 8 at 2; see also id. at 2-3 (appearing to admit that Plaintiff, in fact, had left medicine in patient's room while she took patient for treatment).) The Amended Complaint "demands judgement against [Defendant Hospital] for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . . . ."(Id. at 13; see also id. at 1 (predicating jurisdiction on "Federal Question 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Title VII"), 10 (alleging that Plaintiff "was discriminated against . . . [when] fired . . . violat[ing] [her] right [sic] according to Title VII").)

Liberally construed, the Amended Complaint asserts these claims:

1) discrimination based on national origin, in the form of both hostile work environment and termination of employment, premised on the allegation that a "Charge Nurse[,] who [is] . . a Sierra Leonian [whereas Plaintiff is] a Nigerian[,] said hateful and racial things to [Plaintiff] like: Nigerians are carnivals [sic] . . . because [the Charge Nurse's] aunt married a Nigerian and now she got [sic] missing" (id. at 6; see also id. at 5 (alleging, under heading "Harrassment [sic]," that Charge Nurse "berated [Plaintiff] in the presence of [her] patients that [she] didn't know what [she was] doing[,] . . . slapped [Plaintiff's] wrist and statched [sic] things from [her] hand[,] . . . [and] hid away [Plaintiff's] documentations [sic] on a new admit . . . [before] show[ing] up with the papers and screem[ing] [sic] so loudly at [her] in the hallway [']what is your problem['] . . . and then throw[ing] the papers at [her] . . . in front of all the staff"), 8 (asserting that Charge Nurse "got [Plaintiff] fired"));

2) discrimination based on "disability," in the form of both hostile work environment and termination of employment, premised on the allegations that A) Plaintiff has a "limitation of not liftinganything over 50 lbs as ordered by [her] doctor following an injury on [her] former job in 2010," B) an "[A]ssistant [C]harge [N]urse . . . asked [Plaintiff] to help her with a patient . . . [who] weighed . . . 200-300 lbs so [Plaintiff] told [the Assistant Charge Nurse that Plaintiff] could not do it by [her]self," C) the Assistant Charge Nurse "got so mad and she went and called [the Charge Nurse] and reported [Plaintiff]," and D) "[s]ince then [the Charge Nurse] screemed [sic] and yelled at [Plaintiff] at any time [Plaintiff] interacted with [the Charge Nurse]" (id. at 7; see also id. at 5 (setting out, under heading "Harrassment [sic]," alleged abuse by Charge Nurse), 8 (asserting that Charge Nurse "got [Plaintiff] fired")); and

3) retaliation, in that "[o]n October 15th 2012 [Plaintiff] started working with Davita [Dialysis Inc.] . . . [and a] week into [her] orientation [she] received a message . . . that [she] should report to [Defendant Hospital; however, the next day] . . . [Plaintiff] received a call on [her] cell phone from the manager [at Davita Dialysis] stating that [Plaintiff] should leave [Defendant Hospital] immediately because [Defendant Hospital] called and told [the Davita Dialysis manager] that [Plaintiff] could not work on any of [Defendant Hospital's] patients because [she] was terminated and [she] had filed charge [sic] against [Defendant Hospital] with the EEOC . . . and [later that day the Davita Dialysis manager] said since [Plaintiff] ha[d] filed charge [sic] against [Defendant Hospital the Davita Dialysis manager] nolonger could have [Plaintiff and,] . . . [o]n the 5th of November 2012, [Davita Dialysis] fired [Plaintiff]" (id. at 11-12).

Plaintiff attached to her Amended Complaint five exhibits:

1) a letter dated July 1, 2012, from Plaintiff to the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant Hospital asking "to have [her] termination decision to be reconsidered" (id., Ex. E);

2) a "Charge of Discrimination" dated August 16, 2012, presented by Plaintiff to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and assigned Charge Number 435-2012-00798, which alleges discrimination by Defendant Hospital in May and June 2012 based on "Race," "National Origin," and "Disability" (id., Ex. D);⁴

3) a "Dismissal and Notice of Rights" by the EEOC as to Charge Number 435-2012-00798, dated November 2, 2012, reporting the EEOC's "determination[,] [b]ased upon its investigation, [that it was] unable to conclude that the information obtained establishe[d] violations of the statutes" (id., Ex. A);

4) a "Charge of Discrimination" dated December 17, 2012, presented by Plaintiff to the EEOC and assigned Charge Number 435-2013-00123, which alleges "Retaliation" by Defendant Hospital on November 5, 2012 (id., Ex. B); and

5) a "Notice of Right to Sue (Issued on Request)" by the EEOC to Plaintiff as to Charge Number 435-2013-00123, dated January 31, 2013, in which the EEOC states that "[l]ess than 180 days have passed since the filing of this charge, but . . . it is unlikely that the EEOC will be able to complete the administrative processing within 180 days . . . [and that] [t]he EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge" (id., Ex. C).

DISCUSSION

Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice . . . to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to . . . terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin[.]" 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1); see also Jordan v. Alternative Res. Corp., 458 F.3d 332, 339 (4th Cir. 2006) (observing that discrimination as to "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of [an] individual's race[, color, religion, sex, or national origin] . . . includes maintaining a racially[, color-based, religiously, sexually, or national origin-based] hostile work environment" (internal quotation marks omitted)). In addition, Title VII makes it "an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because [the employee] has made a charge . . . under [Title VII]." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).Further, although "Title VII is unquestionably silent regarding discrimination motivated by a person's physical or mental impediment[,] [s]uch claims are contemplated . . . by the Americans with Disabilities Act [(the "ADA")] . . . ." Sanchez Ramos v. Puerto Rico Police Dep't, 392 F. Supp. 2d 167, 176 (D.P.R. 2005).

More specifically, as pertinent here, Subchapter I of the ADA declares that "[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . . discharge of employees . . . and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); see also Fox v. General Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) ("[T]he ADA, like Title VII, creates a cause of action for hostile work environment harassment."). Similarly, the ADA contains a "retaliation provision [that] provides, in relevant part, 'no person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual made a charge under [the ADA].'" Reynolds v. American Nat'l Red Cross, 701 F.3d 143, 154 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)) (internal brackets and ellipses omitted). Accordingly, despite its facial invocation only of Title VII, the Amended Complaint (liberally construed) asserts claims both under Title VII (for discrimination based on national origin and for retaliation due to filing an EEOC charge of discrimination based on race and national origin) and under the ADA (for discrimination based on disability and for retaliation due to filing an EEOC charge of discrimination based on disability).

In her instant Motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to "assign[] an attorney to represent [her] in [this] lawsuit." (Docket Entry 7 at 1.) Title VII states, in relevant part, that, "[u]pon application by [a plaintiff who has brought a discrimination or retaliation claim under Title VII] and in such circumstances as the court may deem just, the court may appoint an attorney for such [plaintiff] . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (emphasis added). Moreover, Subchapter I of the ADA specifies that "[t]he powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in [S]ection[] . . . 2000e-5 . . . of [Title 42] shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures . . . provide[d] to . . . any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of any provision of . . . [the ADA] concerning employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12117. The ADA's retaliation section, in turn, declares that "remedies and procedures available under [S]ection[] 12117 . . . of [Title 42] shall be available to aggrieved persons for violations of [the prohibition...