United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge John K.
Larkins III's Non-Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”). The R&R recommends the Court
grant Defendant Metropolitan Atlanta Transit
Authority's (“MARTA”) Motion to Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
 (“Motion”). Also before the Court are
Plaintiff Phillip McAdoo's (“Plaintiff”)
Objections to the R&R .
March 7, 2016, Plaintiff Phillip McAdoo filed his complaint
 against MARTA and two other Defendants, the MARTA/ATU
Local 732 Employees Retirement Plan and the MARTA/ATU Local
732 Employees Retirement Plan Allowance Committee
(collectively “the Plan Defendants”). On May 2,
2016, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint . MARTA argues
that Plaintiff's allegations against it are beyond the
scope of his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) charge, and are therefore required to be
dismissed. ([14.1] at 2).
First Amended Complaint
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that he worked for MARTA
from January 1988 through October 2010. ( ¶¶
12-13). He further alleges that, while he worked for MARTA,
he was a disabled individual under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation
Act. (Id. ¶ 16). Plaintiff alleges that, on
October 17, 2010, he became disabled, and he advised MARTA
that he could not work in the same position without a
reasonable accommodation, including retraining. (Id.
¶ 30). He further alleges that MARTA refused to provide
him with retraining despite having retrained non-disabled
employees and having no legitimate reason to deny
Plaintiff's request. (Id. ¶¶ 31-34).
Plaintiff alleges that MARTA violated the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide him with a
reasonable accommodation or training. (Id.
¶¶ 38, 41).
Plaintiff's EEOC Charge
November 18, 2015, the EEOC received Plaintiff's charge
of discrimination. ([14.2]). Plaintiff filed the charge
against the “MARTA/ATU Local 732 Employees Retirement
Plan.” (Id. at 1). He alleged that the
discrimination took place on September 17, 2015.
(Id.). In the narrative portion of the charge,
I was an employee for the above named company and a member of
the union for over twenty (20) years until I suffered an on
the job injury. On or about October 9, 2012, I was terminated
while under the care of my physician from the injury. On
September 25, 2014, I was awarded full pension entitlement.
On September 17, 2015, I was denied full entitlements.
The Retirement Pension Plan stated the reason for denial was
that I was only eligible for 18 months of retirement service
credit spent on workman's compensation.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of
my disability, in violation of Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended
The EEOC sent its notice of the discrimination charge to one