Nurse v. A Better Choice Case Management, LLC
| Decision Date | 04 June 2021 |
| Docket Number | C/A 9:21-cv-455-MBS-MHC |
| Parties | Dr. Ronald A. Nurse, PhD, Plaintiff, v. A Better Choice Case Management, LLC; Tammy Spencer; Nicholas Spencer; and Tina Timmons, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff a former employee of Defendant A Better Choice Case Management, LLC (“ABC”), originally filed this action in Magistrate's Court for Jasper County, South Carolina, on January 7, 2021, alleging various federal and state law claims against ABC, Tammy Spencer, Nicholas Spencer, [1] and Tina Timmons (collectively “Defendants”). See ECF No. 1-1. Defendants removed the case to this Court on February 12 2021, asserting that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. ECF No. 1.
Presently before the Court for disposition is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Motion to Dismiss”).[2] ECF No. 5. Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court issued an Order, pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975), that advised Plaintiff of the motion to dismiss procedures and the possible consequences if he failed to respond adequately to Defendants' Motion. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 13 and Defendants filed a Reply, ECF No. 14. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is ripe for review.
Also before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 15), filed in reaction to Plaintiff's Response to the Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 17), and Defendants filed a Reply, ECF No. 19.[3] The Motion for Sanctions is ripe for review.
Defendants move, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Procedure, to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned recommends that the Motion to Dismiss be granted with respect to Plaintiff's federal claim and that the remaining state law claims be remanded to state court.
Plaintiff is male, African-American, and over sixty-five years old. ECF No. 1-1 at 8. He has a Ph.D in Forensic Psychology, other advanced degrees, and over thirty years of case management experience. Id. at 10.
Plaintiff began his employment with ABC on May 22, 2020. Id. at 9. According to Plaintiff, he “was contracted and assigned to provide Case Management Services to Federal and State Medicaid participants in the South Carolina, Community Long Term Care (CLTC), Case Management Program.” Id. He provided case management services to sixty-seven clients or participants in this program. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against Black and elderly program participants. Id. According to Plaintiff, he discovered many Black participants who qualified for some waiver services, but they were denied by Defendants. Id. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants told Plaintiff that they do not tell minority clients about all the services, and that when “clients ask for services like air conditioners, Ramps, and Home Modifications, the [D]efendants lie to the Black and Hispanic clients and tell them that CLTC no longer provides those services.” Id. at 12. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants posted false narratives and visitation documentation in the Phoenix portal, in violation of CLTC policies and procedures. Id.
Plaintiff alleges that he had a written and verbal contract with Defendants “that they would pay him $40.00 once a month per cont[r]act for each Participant”; however, Defendants actually paid Plaintiff only $25.00 per month per Participant contract. Id. at 9-10. According to Plaintiff, other case managers and employees in the CLTC program, who had less education and experience than Plaintiff, were paid between $40.00 and $72.00 per month for each contract. Id. at 10. Plaintiff alleges that when he asked Defendant Tammy Spencer, Executive Director of ABC, about his pay, she told him he is lucky he is even allowed to work in the CLTC program, as no other Black males worked as case managers in the program and “Black males are nothing, ” so she does not have to pay him. Id. at 9-10. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Nicholas Spencer, Chief Financial Officer of ABC, made similar comments to Plaintiff, calling Plaintiff a “gangster, ” and saying, “I do not owe you anything because Black Males are nothing in America.” Id. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Spencer said that he would not pay Plaintiff what he was owed and that Plaintiff could take him to court. Id. at 10. Plaintiff alleges that he requested copies of his paystubs at least six times, but Defendants refused to give him his paystubs. Id. Plaintiff further alleges that he worked two weeks each month with no pay, and he never received vacation or sick pay. Id. at 11.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants terminated his employment on November 18, 2020, without warning. Id. at 9. According to Plaintiff, Defendants said that they terminated him because he sent an email to coworkers regarding the coronavirus. Id. at 11. His sister had died after contracting the virus, and he sent an email to coworkers about techniques to prevent themselves from being infected. Id. Defendants allegedly told him that the email violated policy. Id. Plaintiff suggests that the real reason for the termination was his race. Id. at 12. He also alleges that he tried to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), but “[b]ecause of the abundance and high volume of discrimination” complaints, “the EEOC is closed and is no longer accepting discrimination complaints.” Id. at 14.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts causes of action for (1) violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (2) violation of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975; (3) violation of Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution; (4) misfeasance (5) embezzlement and fraud; (6) slander, libel, and assail under 28 U.S.C. § 4101; and (7) claims for “unfair, unethical, illegal, and unlawful business practices.” Id. at 8. He alleges that Defendants' actions caused him emotional stress and psychological trauma, and he seeks $485.00 in stolen pay, $32.00 for the cost to mail a manual, and $7, 500.00 in total damages. Id. at 13-14.
“The purpose of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is to test the sufficiency of a complaint.” Williams v. Preiss-Wal Pat III, LLC, 17 F.Supp.3d 528, 531 (D.S.C. 2014). Pursuant to Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), such that the defendant will have “fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, ” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he facts alleged ‘must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level' and must provide ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Robinson v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 551 F.3d 218, 222 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570). “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.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court is required to accept the allegations in the pleading as true and draw all reasonable factual inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir. 2011). Moreover, the court must evaluate “the complaint in its entirety, as well as documents attached or incorporated into the complaint.” Id. at 448. The court may consider a document not attached to the complaint, so long as the document “was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint, ” and there is no authenticity challenge. Id. (quoting Phillips v. LCI Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir. 1999)). “A complaint should not be dismissed as long as it provides sufficient detail about the claim to show that the plaintiff has a more-than-conceivable chance of success on the merits.” Goldfarb v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 791 F.3d 500, 511 (4th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).
Pro se pleadings are given liberal construction and are held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by attorneys. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). However, principles requiring generous construction of pro se complaints do “not require courts to conjure up questions never squarely presented to them.” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274, 1278 (4th Cir. 1985). Giving liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a pro se plaintiff's clear failure to allege facts that set forth a cognizable claim. See Weller v. Dept. of Soc. Servs., City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387, 391 (4th Cir. 1990) (“Only those questions which are squarely presented to a court may properly be addressed.”). Thus, even under this less stringent standard, a pro se complaint is still subject to summary dismissal. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106-07.
In their Motion to Dismiss, Defendants argue that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The undersigned will address Plaintiff's federal claims before turning to the state law claims.
The undersigned notes that Plaintiff's Response...
To continue reading
Request your trial