Pennington v. PruittHealth, Inc.
| Decision Date | 21 October 2019 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 7:19-CV-14 (HL) |
| Parties | CARLA PENNINGTON, Plaintiff, v. PRUITTHEALTH, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia |
Plaintiff Carla Pennington, a former employee of Defendants,2 filed this lawsuit against Defendants for alleged violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA") and the Family Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"). Plaintiffalso asserts state law claims for damage to reputation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 10). For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff began working for Defendants as an LPN in 2008.3 (Doc. 1, ¶ 22). In 2015, Plaintiff became the admissions director, a position she held until her termination. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-23). Throughout her employment history with Defendants, Plaintiff received favorable job performance evaluations as well as regular pay increases and other employment benefits, including health benefits and paid time off. (Id. at ¶¶ 24-25).
On March 27, 2017, Plaintiff received a referral for a new resident. (Id. at ¶ 26). Over the next several days, Plaintiff attempted to contact the individual's family members but received no response. (Id.). Plaintiff left for a scheduled vacation on March 31, 2017. (Id.). The admission paperwork for the new resident was not completed before Plaintiff's departure. (Id.). Plaintiff informed the "back up team" about the potential new resident. (Id.). She also alleges that her supervisor was aware that someone needed to cover the admissions process in Plaintiff's absence. (Id.).
Plaintiff returned from vacation on April 4, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 27). The paperwork for the new resident remained incomplete. (Id.). Plaintiff's supervisor instructed Plaintiff to finish the paperwork, and Plaintiff complied. (Id.). Almost three months later, on June 21, 2017, Defendants terminated Plaintiff for violating company policy when she delayed completing admission paperwork for this new resident. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 28).
Plaintiff, who was over the age of 40 at the time of her termination, contends that Defendants discriminated against her on the basis of her age. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 29). Defendants replaced Plaintiff with an employee under the age of 40 who was not qualified for the position. (Id. at ¶¶ 30-31). Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants treated her differently than other similarly situated, younger employees, who engaged in similar or more egregious conduct than Plaintiff but who were not terminated. (Id. at ¶ 31).
At the time of Plaintiff's termination, she was on medical leave pursuant to the FMLA. (Id. at ¶29). Consequently, Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants terminated her in retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights. (Id. at ¶ 45). Plaintiff additionally contends that Defendants violated the FMLA by refusing to reinstate her to the same or similar position upon her return to work and instead terminating her. (Id. at ¶ 47).
Plaintiff alleges that she filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Id. at ¶ 9). The EEOCissued Plaintiff a right to sue letter dated October 24, 2018, and this lawsuit followed.4
When ruling on a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a 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). To avoid dismissal, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). The complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the [plaintiff's] claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks and citation omitted). And, while a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations, it must provide "more than labels or conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right of relief above the speculative level on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)." Id. (citations omitted).
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, while a court must accept all factual allegations in a complaint as true, this principle are insufficient. Id. "And, of course, a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
A court "generally may not look beyond the pleadings" to consider extrinsic documents when evaluating a motion to dismiss. United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana, Inc., 776 F.3d 805, 811 (11th Cir. 2015); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) (). But this Circuit has adopted the "incorporation by reference doctrine," which permits a court to consider a document attached to a motion to dismiss without requiring the court to convert the motion into one forsummary judgment. Horsley v. Feldt, 304 F.3d 1125, 1134 (11th Cir. 2002). "[W]here the plaintiff refers to certain documents in the complaint and those documents are central to the plaintiff's claim, then the Court may consider the documents part of the pleadings for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal." Brooks v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Fla., Inc., 116 F.3d 1364, 1368-69 (11th Cir. 1997); see also SFM Holdings, Ltd. v. Banc of Am. Sec., LLC, 600 F.3d 1334, 1337 (11th Cir. 2010) ().
One of Defendants' primary arguments in support of their motion to dismiss is that Plaintiff did not timely exhaust her administrative remedies prior to filing suit. In her Complaint, Plaintiff states only that she filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. (Doc. 1, ¶ 9). Plaintiff does not provide the date she allegedly filed her charge, nor did she attach a copy of her charge to her Complaint. Defendants therefore attached to their motion a copy of the charge of discrimination signed by Plaintiff on April 24, 2018, and received by the EEOC on April 26, 2018. (Doc. 12). Plaintiff responded by attaching a statement entitled "EEOC Charge," which she purportedly signed and dated November 29, 2017, and submitted to the EEOC. (Doc. 17-1).5 These documents directly address thequestion of administrative exhaustion, and neither party challenges their authenticity. Further, "[c]ourts routinely consider a plaintiff's EEOC charge . . . to resolve the question of whether a plaintiff has exhausted administrative remedies without converting a motion to dismiss . . . to a motion for summary judgment." Pettiford v. Diversified Enter. of S. Ga., Inc., No. 7:18-CV-105 (HL), 2019 WL 653813, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Feb. 15, 2019) (citing Chestnut v. Ethan Allen Retail, Inc., 971 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1228 (N.D. Ga. 2013)). Accordingly, the Court concludes that it may consider the documents attached to Defendants' motion and Plaintiff's response without converting the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claims for age discrimination are subject to dismissal because Plaintiff did not file her charge of discrimination within 180 days of the last alleged discriminatory act. Alternatively, Defendants contend that Plaintiff's age discrimination claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not presented enough factual detail to state a claim under the ADEA. Defendants also move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for FMLA retaliation, damage to reputation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress for failure to state a claim.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against her based on her age in violation of the ADEA when they terminated her on June 21, 2017, and replaced her with a younger, less qualified individual. However, Plaintiff did not file her formal charge of discrimination with the EEOC until April 26, 2018 - 309 days later. Plaintiff does not dispute that she did not submit her formal charge within the 180 days prescribed by the ADEA. Instead, Plaintiff contends that the statement she mailed to the EEOC on November 29, 2017, outlining her allegations of discrimination against Defendants should be construed as a timely charge of discrimination.
Prior to litigating a claim under the ADEA, a plaintiff first must exhaust all available administrative remedies. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2); Bost v. Fed. Express Corp., 372 F.3d 1233, 1238 (11th Cir. 2004). In Georgia, a non-deferral state, the plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the last alleged...
To continue reading
Request your trial