Powell v. Advancing Opportunities
| Docket Number | Civil Action 22-00525 (GC) (DEA) |
| Decision Date | 31 July 2023 |
| Parties | TAMEKA POWELL, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCING OPPORTUNITIES, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Advancing Opportunities, Inc.'s Motion for Partial Dismissal (ECF No. 28) of Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 25),[1]dated December 14,2022, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). Plaintiff opposed (ECF No. 30), and Defendant replied (ECF No. 31). The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions and decides the matter without oral argument pursuant to Rule 78(b) and Local Civil Rule 78.1(b). For the reasons set forth below, and other good cause shown Defendant's motion is GRANTED. Plaintiffs claims, other than the claim of retaliation in violation of the Family Medical Leave Act, are dismissed without prejudice. In light of Plaintiff s pro se status, Plaintiff shall be given thirty (30) days to file a further amended complaint to try to cure the defects identified herein.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves allegations that Defendant Advancing Opportunities discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff Tameka Powell, who is proceeding pro se, when it discharged her after she took leave to recover from medical complications associated with the COVID-19 vims.[2]
On February 2, 2022, Advancing Opportunities removed this matter to federal court from the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County. (EOF No. 1.[3]) A week later, Advancing Opportunities moved to partially dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as well as to compel her pursuant to Rule 12(e) to provide a more definite statement as to her Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) claim, 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. (ECF No. 4.) Before a decision was issued by the Court, Powell moved to amend her Complaint on April 7, 2022. (ECF No. 10.)
On June 17, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to amend, instructing her to “file an all-inclusive amended complaint by no later than July 1, 2022.” (ECF No. 12.) The Court administratively terminated Defendant's pending motion to dismiss, noting that it could be renewed following the amended complaint. (77)
After obtaining an extension, Plaintiff filed her Amended Complaint on July 21, 2022. (ECF No. 17.) On August 11, 2022, Advancing Opportunities once again moved to partially dismiss for failure to state a claim as well as to compel Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of her FMLA claim. (ECF No. 18.)
On November 16, 2022, the Court granted Advancing Opportunities' motion in part and denied it in part.[4] (ECF Nos. 22 & 23.) Specifically, the Court dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's claims for wrongful termination, misrepresentation, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.; the New Jersey Family Leave Act (“NJFLA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 34:1 IB-1, et seq.; and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (Id.) The Court denied the motion for a more definite statement, finding that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that her employment was terminated in retaliation for her decision to take FMLA leave. (ECF No. 22 at 13-14.) The Court provided Plaintiff thirty days to file a further amended complaint. (Id. at 14.)
On December 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 25.) The FAC names four Defendants - Advancing Opportunities, Paul Ronollo, R.S., and Vanessa Ortiz[5] - and asserts five causes of action: Count I, violation of the FMLA and NJFLA; Count II, violation of the ADA; Count III, violation of Title VII; Count IV, violation of Plaintiff s common law rights and public policy; and Count V, wrongful termination. (Id. ¶¶ 28-32.)
On December 27, 2022, Advancing Opportunities moved to partially dismiss the FAC pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 28.) Powell opposed on January 3, 2023, and Advancing Opportunities replied on January 27, 2023. (ECF Nos. 30 & 31.)
Powell was hired by Advancing Opportunities in October 2015, and promoted to the position of manager in 2018.[7] (ECF No. 25 ¶¶ 6-7.) On or about March 12, 2020, early in New Jersey's COVID-19 pandemic, Advancing Opportunities admitted a new patient, R.S., to its facility even though the patient did not supply “paperwork stating that he was free and clear from all communicable disease” in the seven days prior to his admission. (Id. ¶ 8.) R.S. was later diagnosed with COVID-19 and passed away as a result. (Id. ¶ 9.)
On or about March 20, 2020, Powell tested positive for COVID-19, and she was subsequently hospitalized for shortness of breath at Hackensack Meridian Health's Jersey Shore University Medical Center in Neptune, New Jersey. (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.) Powell remained in the hospital for approximately twelve days. (Id. ¶ 12.)
After being released, Powell continued to have “a hard time breathing,” and her primary care physician ordered Powell “a pump to help with her breathing.” (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) On or about April 27,2020, a pulmonary care doctor ordered Powell an “oxygen (breathing) machine” because Powell's “oxygen levels were still low.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Due to the seriousness of Powell's medical complications, her primary care doctor recommended that Powell be kept out of work until August 3,2020. (Id. ¶ 16.)
Advancing Opportunities first approved medical leave for Powell from March 23, 2020, until May 4, 2020, which was extended until June 8, 2020. (Id. ¶ 17.) When Powell's medical leave under the FMLA was set to expire on June 12, 2020, Advancing Opportunities granted her thirty days of personal leave from June 15, 2020, until July 15, 2020. (Id. ¶ 18.) Despite Powell's doctor recommending that she remain out of work through at least early August 2020, Advancing Opportunities sent Powell an email on or about July 7, 2020, informing her that she would be discharged if unable to return to work. (Id. ¶¶ 19-20.)
Advancing Opportunities then terminated Powell's employment when she was unable to return to work without restrictions. (Id. ¶¶ 20 & 23.) Powell complains that Advancing Opportunities did not allow her to work from home and ignored the organization's own policy that required a doctor to approve return. (Id. ¶¶ 22-23.) This was purportedly in contrast to other male employees that were allowed to either work from home or take extended leaves. (Id. ¶¶ 22 & 26.) Powell alleges that her COVID-19 complications left her “disabled mentally and physically,” which included limiting her ability to perform daily tasks and to complete her job duties. (Id.. ¶ 21.) Powell further alleges that Advancing Opportunities discharged her for exercising her rights under the FMLA and NJFLA. (Id. ¶ 24.)
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, courts “accept the factual allegations in the complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and assess whether the complaint and the exhibits attached to it ‘contain enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Wilson v. USI Ins. Serv. LLC, 57 F.4th 131, 140 (3d Cir. 2023) (quoting Watters v. Bd. of Sch. Directors of City of Scranton, 975 F.3d 406, 412 (3d Cir. 2020)). “A claim is facially plausible ‘when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.'” Clark v. Coupe, 55 F.4th 167, 178 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting Mammana v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons 934 F.3d 368, 372 (3d Cir. 2019)). When assessing the factual allegations in a complaint, courts “disregard legal conclusions and recitals of the elements of a cause of action that are supported only by mere conclusory statements.” Wilson, 57 F.4th at 140 (citing Oakwood Lab 'ys LLC v. Thanoo, 999 F.3d 892, 903 (3d Cir. 2021)). The defendant bringing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion bears the burden of “showing that a complaint fails to state a claim.” In re Plavix Mktg., Sales Pracs. & Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. II), 974 F.3d 228, 231 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 349 (3d Cir. 2016)).
The Court is mindful that pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed. See Beasley v. Howard, 14 F.4th 226, 231 (3d Cir. 2021) (citing Jones v. Unknown D. O. C. Bus Driver & Transp. Crew, 944 F.3d 478, 483 (3d Cir. 2019)). “Notwithstanding the rule of liberal construction, a pro se complaint may not survive dismissal if its factual allegations do not meet Iqbal's basic plausibility standard.” Id. (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)); see also Kennedy v. Am. Airlines Inc., 195 F.Supp.3d 646, 653 (D.N.J. 2016) (Simandle, C.J.) .
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff alleges that Advancing Opportunities unlawfully interfered with her rights under the FMLA and NJFLA and then retaliated against her when she was discharged in July 2020. (ECF No. 25 ¶ 28.) Advancing Opportunities does not move to dismiss Plaintiffs FMLA retaliation claim,[8] but maintains that Plaintiff has not cured the defects that the Court previously identified with Plaintiffs asserted FMLA unlawful interference and NJFLA claims. (ECF No. 28-1 at 11 -12.)
The Court agrees with Defendant.
In its...
To continue reading
Request your trial