Adefris v. Wilson Trailer Co.

• Decision Date: 12 January 2016
• Docket Number: No. C15-4063-MWB,C15-4063-MWB
• Parties: DANIEL GOSAYE ADEFRIS, Plaintiff, v. WILSON TRAILER COMPANY, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

DANIEL GOSAYE ADEFRIS, Plaintiff, v. WILSON TRAILER COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

No. C15-4063-MWB

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA WESTERN DIVISION

January 12, 2016

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

This case is before me on a motion (Doc. No. 9) by defendants Wilson Trailer Company (Wilson), John Kreber, Carol LaBrune and Richard Libke to dismiss plaintiff's complaint. The pro se plaintiff, Daniel Adefris, has not filed a resistance. The Honorable Mark W. Bennett has referred the motion to me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for the preparation of a report and recommended disposition. Doc. No. 10. No party has requested oral argument and, in any event, I find that oral argument is not necessary. See N.D. Ia. L.R. 7(c). The motion is now fully submitted.

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After receiving leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Adefris filed his complaint (Doc. No. 3) on July 23, 2015. On September 1, 2015, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The deadline for Adefris to resist the motion was September 18, 2015. N.D. Ia. L.R. 7(e). No response has been filed.¹

III. ADEFRIS' ALLEGATIONS

A. The Complaint

The complaint includes the following allegations:

Adefris has been employed by Wilson since November 26, 2007. During the relevant events, defendant Kreber was Wilson's Director of Human Resources, defendant LaBrune was Wilson's Human Resources Manager and defendant Libke was a tool crib worker at Wilson.

On May 16, 2014, Adefris injured his back at work while lifting a heavy steel panel. After he reported the injury, Wilson employer sent him home and instructed him to see the company doctor, Tracy Pick. Adefris saw Dr. Pick on May 20 and 29, 2014. X-rays indicated that his spinal cord was bent. In response to this information, Adefris informed defendant LaBrune that Dr. Pick had recommended an MRI if therapy and pain pills were unsuccessful. LaBrune stated that she "did not like the way [Dr. Pick] does things" and cancelled a third scheduled appointment. She instead instructed Adefris to see another company doctor, Douglas Martin.

Adefris saw Dr. Martin on June 5, 12 and 23, 2014. After Dr. Martin ordered an MRI, LaBrune stated, "MRIs don't lie." Adefris interpreted this comment as an accusation that he was lying about his back pain. The MRI was then scheduled for June30, 2014. On that day, Adefris was scheduled to work eight hours but left early for the MRI. The following day, LaBrune again stated, "MRIs don't lie."

On July 7, 2014, Adefris returned to Dr. Martin for a follow-up appointment. Based on the MRI results, Dr. Martin recommended an injection and scheduled it for July 10. However, Adefris postponed the procedure because he wanted to obtain more information it. The injection was rescheduled for July 18. On July 9, 2014, defendant Kreber called Adefris and asked why he was not at work. Adefris told Kreber that he was following LaBrune's instructions to stay home. Kreber told Adefris that he needed to call in to report any absences. Kreber then asked Adefris to come to work for 4 hours and told him to come to Kreber's office to sign papers for workers' compensation purposes. Adefris signed the papers without reading them. It turns out that they were not related to workers' compensation. Instead, they addressed the hours he would work while on medical restrictions, described call-in procedures and included a statement that Wilson would not pay for certain medical services because they were not pre-approved. While Adefris was signing the papers, Kreber asked: "Why don't you find a different job?" Adefris responded: "Would you hire someone with a back I (sic) injury?" Kreber then stated: "This is not a place for you to do what you want."

On July 23, 2014, Adefris was again injured while working and was sent to the emergency room. LaBrune told the medical personnel that Adefris had been "going from doctor to doctor trying to get narcotics." LaBrune also yelled at Adefris: "You people abuse the system."

Wilson required Adefris to work 9-hour shifts, despite medical restrictions and documented medical issues. By contrast, Wilson permitted a white employee to work 4-hour shifts even though that employee's MRI showed no issue.

B. The Exhibits

Adefris attached seven exhibits to his complaint. Doc. No. 3-1 at 1-10. Some of those exhibits contain allegations that go beyond those set forth in the complaint. Exhibit 1 is a narrative that focuses entirely on an alleged confrontation between Adefris and defendant Libke, along with the alleged responses of various Wilson supervisors to that confrontation. Id. at 1-3. The confrontation allegedly occurred on October 28, 2014. Id. at 1.

Exhibit 2 includes a narrative in which Adefris alleges that his employment was terminated in December 2014 in retaliation for filing a civil rights complaint. Id. at 4. It also contains an Iowa Civil Rights Commission (ICRC) authorization release form. Id. at 5. Exhibits 3, 4 and 5 are notices Adefris received from the ICRC and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Id. at 6-8. Exhibit 6 is a letter from Kreber to Adefris, dated December 4, 2014, stating that Adefris' employment was being terminated because he acquired three or more written disciplinary warning letters in a one-year period. Id. at 9. Finally, Exhibit 7 is a union grievance form that asserts, without details, that Adefris was intimidated, coerced or harassed by management on or about August 14, 2014. Id. at 10.

C. Legal Theories

I agree with defendants that when construing Adefris' complaint (including the exhibits) liberally, it may allege: (a) claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on race and national origin under the Iowa Civil Rights Act (ICRA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII); (b) claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation based on race under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Section 1981); and (c) claims of discrimination and denial of accommodation based on disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ICRA. Doc. No. 9-1 at 2.

IV. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT

On August 5, 2014, Adefris filed a complaint (the administrative complaint) with the Sioux City Human Rights Commission (SCHRC). Doc. No. 9-3. It was cross-filed with the ICRC and the EEOC. Doc. No. 9-4 at 1. The administrative complaint alleged that Adefris is a black male of African origin who was denied accommodation/modification, denied benefits and harassed due to his race and national origin. Doc. No. 9-3 at 1-2. The administrative complaint did not allege any retaliatory action. Id. at 2.

Adefris included the same narrative in the administrative complaint that is contained in the body of his complaint in this case. Compare Doc. No. 3 at 2-4 with Doc. No. 9-3 at 4-6. In the administrative complaint, Adefris named Kreber and LaBrune as the individuals who discriminated against him and Wilson as the legal entity involved in the discrimination. Doc. No. 9-3 at 2-3.

On March 26, 2015, the ICRC issued letters to Adefris and Wilson indicating that the SCHRC, the agency responsible for processing the administrative complaint, had determined that it should be closed. Doc. No. 3-1 at 6; Doc. No. 9-5. For that reason, the ICRC likewise administratively closed the case. Doc. No. 3-1 at 6. The letter issued to Adefris advised him of certain options available to him, including (a) a request for reconsideration, which could be filed within 30 days of the date of the letter, (b) a request for a right-to-sue letter, which could be made within two years of the date of the letter, and (c) a request for review by the EEOC. Id. Adefris does not allege that he availed himself of any of these options.

On June 1, 2015, the EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter advising Adefris that he had the right to initiate a lawsuit within 90 days of his receipt of the letter. Doc. No. 3-1 at 7.

V. APPLICABLE STANDARDS

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize a pre-answer motion to dismiss for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court has provided the following guidance in considering whether a pleading properly states a claim:

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." As the Court held in [Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)], the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require "detailed factual allegations," but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. Id., at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286, 106 S. Ct. 2932, 92 L.Ed.2d 209 (1986)). A pleading that offers "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." 550 U.S., at 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955. Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders "naked assertion[s]" devoid of "further factual enhancement." Id., at 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955.

To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Id., at 570, 127 S. Ct. 1955. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Id., at 556, 127 S. Ct. 1955. The plausibility standard is not akin to a "probability requirement," but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Ibid. Where a complaint pleads facts that are "merely consistent with" a defendant's liability, it "stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of 'entitlement to relief.' " Id., at 557, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (brackets omitted)

...