Wade v. Broadnax

Background

Carlene Wade, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Keisha Broadnax, Luis Maher, Richard Watson, Michael Kalish, and Judith Giberstone under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Wade alleged only that the defendants retaliated against her and terminated her employment. She did not identify her employer. She sought damages and an order requiring her employer to reemploy her.

The court had previously allowed Wade to proceed without prepaying filing fees. It therefore reviewed the complaint under the screening requirement for such cases, which requires dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, seek money from an immune defendant, or fall outside the court’s jurisdiction. The court also explained that a complaint must provide enough factual detail to make a claim plausible, while reading a self-represented person’s allegations liberally.

ADA claim

The court held that Wade failed to state an ADA claim. She did not allege facts showing that she had a disability. She also did not explain what happened or provide facts supporting an inference that her disability, or her opposition to conduct prohibited by the ADA, motivated the alleged retaliation or termination. In addition, Wade named only individual defendants, and the court stated that individuals are not proper defendants for an ADA claim. Wade also did not plead where she was employed, leaving the court without facts concerning where the alleged employment conduct occurred.

FMLA claim

The court held that Wade also failed to state an FMLA claim. She did not allege whether she requested leave, the reason for any requested leave, how long she sought leave, whether leave was denied, or what reason the employer gave for any denial. She likewise did not allege that she was retaliated against for taking FMLA leave. The court concluded that her assertion that her FMLA rights were violated was conclusory and unsupported by factual allegations.

Leave to amend and disposition

The court granted Wade leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim against each defendant, identify an employer as a defendant, and include relevant people, events, approximate dates and locations, injuries, and requested relief. The amended complaint will replace rather than supplement the original complaint, so Wade must repeat any facts or claims she wants the court to consider.

The court did not dismiss the ADA or FMLA claims in this order. Instead, it stated that if Wade does not timely comply and cannot show good cause, those claims will be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court will decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. No summons would issue at that time. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without prepaying fees.