Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Case Number: 3:21-cv-00672
Judge: Jeffrey S. Frenseley
Court: United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee (Davidson County)
Defendant's Attorney: J. Christpher Anderson
Description: Nashville, Tennessee pro se Plaintiff, representing herself without a lawyer, sued Defendants civil rights job discrimination theories.
Plaintiff was called into a meeting with a supervisor (Perry) and HR representative (Haddock) at MHM Health Professionals on June 3, 2021, to discuss an incident that had previously occurred at MHM Health Professionals. Docket No. 1, p. 7. During that incident, Plaintiff asked a coworker for money that she had previously loaned to the coworker, causing the coworker to “get violent.” Id. Plaintiff describes what occurred during the June 3, 2021, meeting:
As I entered the room Supervisor Blanche Perry and HR Rep Jane Haddock asked me what I was doing with that, meaning my cane. I told them that I was having issues and I needed it to walk with. The [ sic ] told me I could not have that in the office.
After the meeting, Plaintiff stopped using her cane for three weeks. Id. Perry and Haddock informed her that she needed to provide a doctor's excuse to use her cane. Id. On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff gave a doctor's note, written by Plaintiff's primary care physician, to her manager Kulani Seka. Id. On the same day, Perry and Haddock called Plaintiff and stated that she could not “come into work on Monday, because they needed more information from [her] Doctor [ sic ] Regarding [sic] the cane.” Id. Perry and Haddock told Plaintiff that she would “receive some forms by email from the company Leave Administrator” for her doctor to complete. Id. She was out of work for four days, and she was required to use her personal time off, which depleted her balance. Id. Plaintiff's primary care physician faxed the additional forms to Haddock, and Plaintiff was allowed to return to work on July 2, 2021. Id.; Docket No. 6, p. 2. At the end of the Complaint, Plaintiff states, “I feel they were trying to retaliate against me on the count of the other issue.” Docket No. 1, p. 7.
Plaintiff accepted another job on August 9, 2021, as she “was being mistreated since May of 2020.” Id. at 5. She states, “I was there doing my job. I was put under undue stress, retaliation & had to suffer pain from my disability.” Id. She states that she accepted this new position “in good faith.” Id. at 6.
Haslerig v. Perry (M.D. Tenn. 2022)
For the reasons discussed above, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff failed to properly serve all Defendants, two of the Defendants cannot be held liable under the ADA as they are individuals, Plaintiff did not exhaust administrative remedies with respect to her retaliation claim, and Plaintiff failed to state a claim with respect to her retaliation claim and her failure to accommodate claim. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 14) be GRANTED.