Aletum v. Kuehne + Nagel Co.
| Decision Date | 23 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-19-1972 |
| Parties | MICHAEL ALETUM Plaintiff v. KUEHNE + NAGEL COMPANY Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
The self-represented plaintiff, Michael Aletum, has filed an employment discrimination action against defendant "Kuehne + Nagel Company" ("Kuehne")1 under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ECF 8 (the "Amended Complaint").2 Plaintiff, who is deaf, alleges that Kuehne asked him "illegal questions" during a job interview and declined to hire him because of his disability. Id. at 6; see ECF 1 at 1-2.
Now pending is Kuehne's "Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint," pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6). ECF 14. The motion is supported by a memorandum of law (ECF 14-1) (collectively, the "Motion) and one exhibit. ECF 14-2. Mr. Aletum opposes the Motion. ECF 24 (the "Opposition"). Five exhibits are appended to the Opposition. ECF 24-1 to ECF 24-5. Defendant has replied. ECF 27.
The Motion is fully briefed, and no hearing is necessary to resolve it. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant the Motion.
Plaintiff, a resident of Takoma Park, Maryland, is "totally hearing Impaired or Deaf" and communicates using American Sign Language. ECF 1 at 1. Kuehne is "one of the world's leading logistics companies," with more than 80,000 employees in over one hundred countries. About Us, KUEHNE + NAGEL, https://www.kn-portal.com/about_us/about_us/ (last accessed Apr. 14, 2020).
On June 4, 2019, plaintiff filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. ECF 1. By Order of June 12, 2019, Judge James Boasberg found that venue was improper because plaintiff is a resident of Maryland and plaintiff listed a Maryland address for Kuehne. ECF 4. Therefore, Judge Boasberg transferred the case to the District of Maryland, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Id.
By Order of August 26, 2019, I directed plaintiff to amend his complaint to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). ECF 7. In particular, I instructed that the complaint "must include the dates of the alleged events, identify the individual(s) with whom he communicated, and provide facts to support his claim that the interview was conducted in an unlawful, discriminatory manner." Id. at 2. The Court cautioned that "failure to adequately supplement the Complaint will result in dismissal of the Complaint without prejudice and without further notice." Id. Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on September 23, 2019. ECF 8.
Mr. Aletum alleges that he interviewed for a management position with Kuehne on July 13, 2018. ECF 8 at 6. The interview was conducted over the phone through "Purple RelayService" ("Purple") id., a service that enables deaf and hearing-impaired persons to communicate in sign language with voice telephone users. See What is VRS? PURPLE, https://signlanguage.com/vrs/ (last accessed Apr. 14, 2020).
According to plaintiff, the interview with Kuehne's general manager lasted "less than 10 minutes." ECF 8 at 6. He also states it was "approximately 4 mins . . . ." Id. at 10. During the interview, Kuehne's general manager allegedly asked Mr. Aletum "illegal questions" and "never interviewed the proper questions related [to the] management position." Id. a 6. Plaintiff also claims that the general manager "seemed asking [sic] 'Disability question?' or something else." Id. Further, plaintiff alleges that the interview "was not sufficient time to question for related job factors." Id. at 10.
Kuehne did not extend a job offer to plaintiff. See ECF 8 at 6. He alleges that he "was not considered for the management position because the defendant violated the ADA under the federal law." Id.
The docket did not reflect that Mr. Aletum had filed summons with the Clerk. Therefore, the Court issued an Order on October 11, 2019 (ECF 9), directing plaintiff to file completed summons with the Clerk and detailing how plaintiff could obtain the name and service address for Kuehne's resident agent. Id. at 2. The Court further explained that because Mr. Aletum was proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court would order the U.S. Marshal to serve defendant on plaintiff's behalf. Id. at 1.
On October 28, 2019, plaintiff wrote to the Court stating that he had only filled out his name and defendant's name on the summons. ECF 10. In his view, "the Process Server, Sheriff, and Clerk have got to do these forms and sign these." Id. at 1. Mr. Aletum's letter suggests thathe was unsure how to complete the forms. He stated, id. at 2: "I don't know what the process server fills, signs and defendants are sent by the server/sheriff."
Summons were issued to plaintiff the next day (ECF 11), but plaintiff submitted unsigned forms, which the Clerk returned to him on November 4, 2019. ECF 12. On November 21, 2019, the Court received correspondence from plaintiff, reiterating that his interview with Kuehne was only four minutes long. ECF 13 at 1. In addition to his letter, plaintiff submitted a call log from Purple, dated July 13, 2018, and an email to Mr. Aletum from Amber Gabriel, a Talent Acquisition Marketing Specialist at Kuehne, dated July 12, 2019. ECF 13 at 4-6.
On December 23, 2019, defendant moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint for insufficient service, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5), and for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). ECF 14; ECF 14-1. On the same day, the Court directed plaintiff to submit completed summons to the Clerk by January 7, 2020, to effect service of process. ECF 16. The Court stressed that failure to comply with the Order would result in dismissal of the case, without prejudice. Id. Summons were returned executed as to Kuehne on January 14, 2020. ECF 21.
The Court issued a Notice to plaintiff on December 26, 2018 (ECF 18), advising of his right to respond to the Motion and the potential consequences of failing to do so. Plaintiff's opposition was due January 15, 2020. See Local Rule 105.2(a). However, the Court did not receive plaintiff's opposition to the Motion until February 6, 2020. ECF 24. Defendant replied on February 19, 2020. ECF 27.
A defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Paradise Wire & Cable Defined Benefit Pension Plan v. Weil, 918 F.3d 312, 317 (4th Cir. 2019); In re Birmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017); Goines v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393, 408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom., McBurney v. Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013); Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that, even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
Whether a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by reference to the pleading requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). That rule provides that a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of the rule is to provide the defendants with "fair notice" of the claims and the "grounds" for entitlement to relief. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007).
To survive a motion under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 684 (2009) ; see also Paradise Wire & Cable, 918 F.3d at 317; Willner v. Dimon, 849 F.3d 93, 112 (4th Cir. 2017). Of course, a plaintiff need not include "detailed factual allegations" in order to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2). Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Moreover, federal pleading rules "do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for imperfectstatement of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted." Johnson v. City of Shelby, Miss., 574 U.S. 10, 10 (2014) (per curiam). But, mere "'naked assertions' of wrongdoing" are generally insufficient to state a claim for relief. Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 193 (4th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
In other words, the rule demands more than bald accusations or mere speculation. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555; see Painter's Mill Grille, LLC v. Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). If a complaint provides no more than "labels and conclusions" or "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action," it is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. "[A]n unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation" does not state a plausible claim of relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Rather, to satisfy the minimal requirements of Rule 8(a)(2), the complaint must set forth "enough factual matter (taken as true) to suggest" a cognizable cause of action, "even if . . . [the] actual proof of those facts is improbable and . . . recovery is very remote and unlikely." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (internal quotation marks omitted).
In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, "a court 'must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint,' and must 'draw all reasonable inferences [from those facts] in favor of the plaintiff.'" Retfalvi v. United States, 930 F.3d 600, 605 (4th Cir. 2019) (alteration in Retfalvi) (quoting E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011)); see Semenova v. Md. Transit Admin., 845 F.3d 564, 567 (4th Cir. 2017); Houck v. Substitute Tr. Servs., Inc., 791 F.3d 473, 484 (4th Cir. 2015). However, "a court is not required to accept legal conclusions drawn from the facts." Retfalvi, 930 F.3d at 605 (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)); see Glassman v. Arlington Cty., 628 F.3d 140, 146 (4th Cir....
To continue reading
Request your trial