Marx v. Ga. Dep't of Corr., Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-92 (HL)
| Decision Date | 23 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-92 (HL) |
| Parties | MAKAYLA MARX, Plaintiff, v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WARDEN WILLIAM DANFORTH, Individually and in his Official Capacity, and DEPUTY WARDEN CALVIN ORR, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 28). The Court has read and considered Defendants' motion and brief, Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31), and Defendants' Reply (Doc. 32). The Court has already ruled that Plaintiff's Seconded Amended Complaint (Doc. 14) will govern this case. (See Doc. 26). For the reasons stated below, Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted in part, and Plaintiff is ordered to revise her complaint.
To avoid dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state aclaim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). A claim is plausible if its factual allegations allow "the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. The plausibility standard "calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence" of the defendant's liability. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556.
In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept "all well-pleaded facts...as true, and the reasonable inferences therefrom are construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271, 1273 n.1 (11th Cir. 1999). However, this tenet does not apply to legal conclusions in the complaint. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. A court must dismiss the complaint if, "on the basis of a dispositive issue of law, no construction of the factual allegations will support the cause of action." Marshall Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall Cnty. Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993) (). "[C]onclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of fact, or legal conclusions masquerading as facts will not prevent dismissal." Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v.Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002). The court may not "accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Construing the factual allegations in the complaint in favor of Plaintiff Makayla Marx ("Plaintiff"), Defendant Georgia Department of Corrections ("GDOC") hired Plaintiff on February 16, 2006, to work as a corrections officer at Valdosta State Prison. After being diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD") in February 2008, Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations from GDOC for her work. Although placed on modified duty, Plaintiff was frequently questioned by Defendant Deputy Warden Calvin Orr ("Orr") about her health condition, appointments with medical providers, the duration of her illness, and similar topics.1 Other individuals enjoyed uninterrupted time on modified duty, but when Plaintiff inquired about these positions, her requests were ignored. (Doc. 13, ¶10-14, 27). Instead, Plaintiff was placed on assignments in the prison that were not normally given to women. Orr accused Plaintiff of poor job performance and, on one occasion in January 2010, claimed she had abandoned her job post to smoke. (Doc. 13, ¶26, 33-34, 37).
Plaintiff brought her predicament to the attention of Orr's superiors, but her efforts backfired. Complaints in October 2008 fell on deaf ears. When Plaintiffcomplained to Defendant Warden William Danforth ("Danforth"), he supported Orr, and a letter of complaint filed with Danforth in February 2010 was equally fruitless. After Plaintiff began complaining about Danforth in addition to Orr, an investigation was begun, but the investigatory interview held in June 2010 was designed to intimidate Plaintiff.2 Finally, to protect her physical and mental health, Plaintiff resigned from her job. (Doc. 13, ¶28, 31, 35, 38-39).
Seeking redress, Plaintiff brought this lawsuit in July 2012, naming as defendants Georgia Department of Corrections, Danforth in his official and individual capacities, and Orr in his official and individual capacities. Plaintiff alleges she suffered retaliation and discrimination in a hostile work environment in violation of Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA") and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. (See Docs. 13 and 14). Plaintiff's complaint asks only for a monetary award for damages, not injunctive relief. (Doc. 13, ¶44).
Plaintiff alleges the Defendants, including Danforth and Orr in their individual capacities, violated the ADA. Specifically, Plaintiff claims Defendantsviolated Title I of the ADA by discriminating against her in the workplace on the basis of her disability and violated Title V by retaliating against her when she complained of the discriminatory treatment.
Plaintiff's claim under Title I of the ADA against the GDOC and Danforth and Orr, in their official capacities, must be dismissed. In Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress did not validly abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity with its enactment of Title I because it lacked the constitutional authority to do so. 531 U.S. 356, 374, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). Congress did not validly abrogate the immunity, for it failed to provide a compelling record of employment discrimination by the states against disabled individuals, as required by § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 368. "The legislative history of the ADA, however, simply fails to show that Congress did in fact identify a pattern of irrational state discrimination in employment against the disabled." Id.
In the present case, the Eleventh Amendment would bar Plaintiff, as a private individual, from seeking money damages from the State of Georgia through Title I. Id. at 374. Because the GDOC functions as "an arm of the state" and Danforth and Orr, in their official capacities, serve as state officials, they are also protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Miller v. King, 384 F.3d1248, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004) () (overruled on other grounds by Miller v. King, 449 F.3d 1149 (11th Cir. 2006)); Hobbs v. Roberts, 999 F.2d 1526, 1528 (11th Cir. 1993); Robinson v. Ga. Dep't of Transp., 966 F.2d 637, 638-39 (11th Cir. 1992); Ferguson v. Ga. Dep't of Corrections, 428 F. Supp. 2d 1339, 1352-53 (M.D. Ga. 2006). Plaintiff's Title I claim for monetary damages against these Defendants is dismissed.
Because Eleventh Amendment immunity also extends to retaliation claims brought under Title V, Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Title V claim against the DOC and Danforth and Orr in their official capacities is granted.
The Court agrees with the parties that no controlling authority has addressed the issue of whether Eleventh Amendment immunity extends to Title V retaliation claims. However, the Court is persuaded by, and adopts, the reasoning provided by various appellate and district courts concluding the Eleventh Amendment provides immunity from Title V retaliation claims based on alleged violations of Title I. See, e.g., Lors v. Dean, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 4017323, at *2-4 (8th Cir. 2013); Demshki v. Monteith, 255 F.3d 986, 988 (9th Cir. 2001); Merbach v. N.D. State Water Comm'n, No. 1:13-CV-030, 2013 WL 2252916, at *3 ; Collazo-Rosado v. Univ. of P.R., 775 F.Supp. 2d 376, 387 (D.P.R. 2011); Padilla v. N.Y. State Dep't of Labor, No. 09 Civ. 5291 (CM RLE), 2010 WL 3835182, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 13, 2010); Shabazz v. Texas Youth Com'n, 300 F. Supp. 2d 467, 472-73 (N.D. Tex. 2003). The Court acknowledges, but is not persuaded by, the conclusion by other courts that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not apply to Title V claims. See, e.g., Bylsma v. Haw. Pub. Hous. Auth., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, Civ. No. 13-00228, 2013 WL 2947905, at *4 (D.Haw. June 13, 2013) (); Villanueva-Cruz v. Puerto Rico, No. Civ. 10-2075, 2012 WL 1712691, at *6 .
The Eleventh Amendment generally protects states from suits brought in federal court by private individuals seeking money damages. See Green v. Mansour, 474 U.S. 64, 68-69, 106 S.Ct. 423, 88 L.Ed.2d 371 (1985). Congress may remove this immunity only if it (a) unequivocally expresses an intent to do so and (b) acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. Kimel v. Fla. Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 73, 78, 120 S.Ct. 631, 145 L.Ed.2d 522 (2000); Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363. Congress clearly intended to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity with regards to ADA claims, so the remaining question is whether removing immunity for Title V claims was in keeping with a valid grant of constitutional authority. See 42 U.S.C. § 12202; Garrett, 531 U.S. at 363-64.
Congress was not acting pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority when it sought to abrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for Title V claims, at least when those claims are predicated on Title I violations. Congre...
To continue reading
Request your trial