Jackson v. Senior Care Solutions, Inc

Background

Myisha Jackson filed an employment-discrimination lawsuit against Senior Care Solutions, Inc. She alleged that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by treating her differently from similarly situated employees because of her race and terminating her employment in September 2019. Jackson represented herself. The company filed an answer asserting seven affirmative defenses, including failure to state a claim, failure to establish that race caused the termination, legitimate and nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions, failure to mitigate damages, lack of damages, and limits on punitive damages.

Motion to Strike the Affirmative Defenses

Jackson asked the court to strike all seven affirmative defenses. The court denied that motion. It explained that striking a defense under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) is an extreme remedy and that Jackson had not shown that the defenses were legally insufficient, redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.

The court declined to decide whether the heightened pleading standard from Ashcroft v. Iqbal and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly applies to affirmative defenses. It concluded that the defenses concerning the reasons for the termination related to the burden-shifting framework used in federal employment-discrimination cases, while the other defenses concerned damages. The court said those issues were better left for discovery and would not be stricken.

The court also noted that Jackson had not met and conferred with the company before filing the motion, as required by the District of Minnesota’s local rules. It cautioned that representing herself did not exempt her from complying with court rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or court orders.

Motion to Amend for Punitive Damages

Jackson asked to amend her complaint to add punitive damages under Minnesota law. Because her lawsuit alleged violations of Title VII, the court treated the request as one to add punitive damages under federal law and applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.

The court granted Jackson leave to amend. Under Title VII, punitive damages may be available when an employer intentionally discriminates with malice or reckless indifference to federally protected rights. The court found that Jackson’s existing allegations—including that she was wrongfully terminated, treated differently from white coworkers, and subjected to different handling of workplace complaints and discipline—were enough to allow the proposed amendment at this stage. The court did not decide whether Jackson would ultimately prove the malice or reckless indifference required for punitive damages.

The court directed Jackson to file an amended complaint substantially in the form of her proposed amended complaint within 14 days of the order.

Request for Financial Discovery

Jackson also requested discovery concerning Senior Care Solutions’ financial condition to develop her punitive-damages claim. When she filed the motion, she had not served a discovery request for that information. She later filed a separate motion to compel that included requests for financial records.

The court denied the request for general financial discovery as moot in light of the later motion to compel. It also found that Jackson had not properly met and conferred with the company about the financial-discovery request before filing the motion.

Disposition

The court denied Jackson’s motion to strike the company’s affirmative defenses. It granted in part and denied in part Jackson’s motion to amend the complaint and seek discovery: amendment to add the punitive-damages claim was allowed, while the discovery motion was denied. Judge Tony N. Leung did not decide the underlying employment-discrimination claims or whether punitive damages would ultimately be proven.