Neil v. Warren Cnty. Schs.
| Decision Date | 25 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 5:20-CV-595-FL |
| Parties | ANGELLAR NEIL, Plaintiff, v. WARREN COUNTY SCHOOLS, et al, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina |
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the court on Defendants briefing are ripe for decision, and the motions are referred to the undersigned for a memorandum and recommendation to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Local Civ. R. 72.3(c). For the reasons set forth below, it is recommended that the motion to dismiss, [DE-86], be allowed in part and denied in part, the motion for "claims for relief," [DE-89], be denied as moot, and the, motions for a calendar request, [DE-103], for a scheduling conference, [DE-106], and for a stay of that scheduling conference, [DE-109], be denied as premature, as scheduling matters will be addressed in due course.
On November 6, 2020, Neil, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint against Katrinka Brewer, the school principal, and Warren County Schools,[2] alleging claims of employment discrimination and retaliation based on race, age, disability, and national origin, in violation of various federal and state laws. [DE-1]. Plaintiff subsequently filed an amended complaint, [DE-3], and Defendants filed their first motion to dismiss, [DE-62]. With leave of court, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, [DE-82], which became the operative complaint following the district court's Order. [DE-81]. The court denied Defendants' first motion to dismiss as moot, but allowed Defendants to refile a new motion. Defendants filed the instant motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) on January 20, 2022. [DE-86]. Plaintiff later filed a third, fourth, and fifth supplemental response and also filed two memoranda. [DE-95, -96, -97, -100, -101]. Plaintiff additionally filed a "Motion for Claim of Relief," [DE-89], to which Defendants responded, [DE-93], a Calendar Request Document, [DE-103], and a Motion for Expedited Scheduling Conference, [DE-106]. Defendants filed a Motion to Stay Scheduling Conference, [DE-109], to which Plaintiff responded in opposition, [DE-110].
The allegations asserted in the amended complaint are as follows. Plaintiff, who is Jamaican, was a teacher at Miriam Boyd Elementary School in Warren County during the 2018- 19 academic year. Plaintiff generally claims that she suffered discrimination and harassment from the school principal and her colleagues because she is Jamaican, and that when she complained about how she was treated, she was retaliated against and her contract was not renewed for the following academic year. Plaintiff contends that she exhausted her administrative remedies with her Charge filed on July 18, 2019 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Plaintiff states that she received a Right to Sue Letter on September 4, 2020. Am. Compl. [DE-82] at 2-4.
Plaintiff's amended complaint added numerous individual defendants, including administrators, teachers, and other employees, and provides twenty pages of factual allegations. Id. at 5-25. These allegations include, among other things, that she was told to do tasks for other classes, "rude" comments were made about Plaintiff's food, she was the only certified teacher given hallway duties instead of proctoring the North Carolina end-of-grade exam, she had no Caucasian students in her class, "heat and fume exhaust released from the unit in the classroom" resulting in a student complaining of his eyes burning but the nurse sent the student back to class, Plaintiff's classroom was often not cleaned while others were, a parent or grandparent angrily approached Plaintiff about the homework she was assigning, Katrinka Brewer yelled at Plaintiff in front of her class, Plaintiff's sick pay was being docked, and Plaintiff never received tax documents. Id. at 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 23.
Regarding her nationality-based claims, Plaintiff identifies several specific interactions. Plaintiff describes a text message from another teacher, Defendant Martina Taylor, in which Taylor said, "I just want to make sure you are comfortable staying with us ... being that we are veterans at Warren Co." and that Taylor told the Plaintiff, "We're going to send her ass back to Jamaica." Id. at 6. The second interaction involved Katrinka Brewer, the secretary, and a parent talking and laughing about homework given by Plaintiff. Id. Plaintiff described, Id. at 11.
Plaintiff contends that students first informed her that she would be fired in January 2019. Id. at 19. Plaintiff was verbally notified on May 17, 2019 by Dr. Keedra Whitaker, the Human Resource Director, that her position would be eliminated. Id. Plaintiff states she was informed that her contract would not be renewed for the 2019-20 academic year due to budget constraints. Id. at 20. Plaintiff asserts that another person not of the same national origin as Plaintiff was hired for the same position, and that the school did not fulfill the terms of Plaintiff's contract. Id. at 20-21.
Plaintiff generally concludes that because she is Jamaican she was subjected to a hostile work environment, treated less favorably, and experienced retaliation for complaining about Defendants' actions towards her. Id. at 24. Plaintiff seeks, injunctive and declaratory relief and monetary, including punitive, damages. Id. at 2, 25.
Plaintiff states she is entitled to relief based on Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, "the North Carolina Law Against Discrimination N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §§ 95-240 to 95-245," 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2, "as well as other State and Federal Laws against employment discrimination." Id. at 2, 25-35. Plaintiff further lists her claims as based on "Immigration fraud, Breach of Contract and [sic] hinderance to working for the next twenty five (25 years)," "unemployment benefits, Labor, Federal tax-no W2 [sic], Personal Injury/Defamation of Character, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), ADA", as well as various other federal and state statutes including the Social Security Act, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), stalking "in violation of G.S. 14-277.3A," and defamation. Id. at 25-35. Plaintiff repeats much of this information in her subsequent responses to Defendants' motion to dismiss. See [DE-95, -96, -97, -100, -101].
Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. [DE-86] at 1-2. Defendants argue that Plaintiff fails to include a "short and plain" statement of her claim for relief, fails to state a claim under Title VI or VII of the Civil Rights Act, fails to allege facts sufficient to support the other remaining claims, and that no punitive damages can be recovered against the Board as a matter of law. [DE-87] at 6-20.
While Defendants are correct that Plaintiff's amended complaint is lengthy, often fails to tie specific Defendants to allegations, at times lacks clarity, and does not specify which claims are against which Defendants or whether Defendants are being sued in individual or official capacities, [DE-82] at 5-36, the amended complaint is sufficient to give Defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they rest.
Plaintiff's amended complaint is forty-one pages, the factual allegations number 230 paragraphs, and the section regarding the claims for relief is ten pages. Am. Compl. [DE-82]. Although the "claims for relief do not on their face clearly connect each claim to a particular Defendant, the claims of discrimination and retaliation largely appear to be directed at the Board. Id. at 25-36. The standard used to evaluate the sufficiency of a pleading is flexible, "and a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (quotation omitted). Despite her multiple opportunities to convey her claims to the court, Plaintiff's filings are not concise-they are "not a model of clarity and [are] needlessly long." Lopez v. Ham Farms, LLC, No. 5:17-CV-329-D, 2019 WL 237386, at *2 (E.D. N.C. Jan. 15, 2019). The amended complaint, however, is sufficiently dissimilar to those in cases that the court has dismissed for failing to comply with Rule 8(a)(2). See, e.g., Lemon v. Lemon, No. 7:20-CV-13-D, 2020 WL 1472061, at *4 (E.D. N.C. Feb. 14, 2020) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial