Mary Jones v. Terrible Herbst, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Nevada adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in Mary Jones’s employment-discrimination action against Terrible Herbst, Inc. The court allowed the ADA retaliation and ADEA failure-to-promote claims to proceed, while dismissing with prejudice claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, Fourteenth Amendment violations, and interference with state unemployment benefits. The court also granted one additional opportunity to amend certain ADA, age-termination, and race-discrimination claims.

Holdings

1. A complaint filed by a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and failure to state a claim is evaluated under the Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard.
2. The First Amended Complaint plausibly stated an ADA retaliation claim, which may proceed.
3. The First Amended Complaint failed to plead that Jones had a disability within the meaning of the ADA, but the deficiency could be cured; the claim was dismissed without prejudice with one additional opportunity to amend.
4. The First Amended Complaint failed to state an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim because Jones did not plead facts showing that she was disabled or could perform the essential functions of her job with a reasonable accommodation; the claim was dismissed without prejudice with one additional opportunity to amend.
5. Jones plausibly stated an age-discrimination failure-to-promote claim, but did not state an age-discrimination termination claim; the termination theory was dismissed without prejudice with one additional opportunity to amend.
6. The First Amended Complaint failed to state a Title VII or Nevada race-discrimination claim because it alleged no facts supporting an inference that an adverse action was motivated by race-based animus; the claim was dismissed without prejudice with one additional opportunity to amend.
7. The wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim failed as a matter of law and was dismissed with prejudice because it was based on alleged discrimination for which Jones had statutory remedies.
8. Jones failed to state and could not state a Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim based on termination from private at-will employment, and the claim was dismissed with prejudice.
9. The claim based on the employer's statements to the Nevada Employment Security Division was barred by Nevada's judicial-proceedings privilege and was dismissed with prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated a plausible ADA retaliation claim.
2. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated plausible ADA disability-discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims.
3. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated a plausible age-discrimination failure-to-promote claim or an age-discrimination termination claim.
4. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated a plausible Title VII or Nevada race-discrimination claim.
5. Whether the claims for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, Fourteenth Amendment due process, and interference with state unemployment benefits failed as a matter of law.

Disposition

other