United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Columbus Division
MIRCHELLE T. PLUMMER, Plaintiff,
THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, et al., Defendants.
D. LAND CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
Mirchelle T. Plummer claims that her employer, Defendant the
Housing Authority of Columbus discriminated against her
because of her race, age, religion, sex, and disability. She
further asserts that the Housing Authority retaliated against
her for complaining of discrimination and deprived her of her
rights secured by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Plummer also
named several Housing Authority employees as Defendants.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plummer's entire
Complaint for failure to state a claim. As discussed below,
the motion (ECF No. 4) is granted in part and denied in part,
and Plummer shall have one opportunity to amend her
TO DISMISS STANDARD
survive a motion to dismiss” under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). The complaint must include sufficient factual
allegations “to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
The factual allegations must “raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of” the
plaintiff's claims. Id. at 556. But “Rule
12(b)(6) does not permit dismissal of a well-pleaded
complaint simply because ‘it strikes a savvy judge that
actual proof of those facts is improbable.'”
Watts v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295
(11th Cir. 2007) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).
who is proceeding pro se, alleges the following facts in
support of her claims. The Court must accept these
allegations as true for purposes of the pending motion.
is an employee of the Housing Authority. She works under the
direction of Defendants Mimi James, Susan McGuire, Tashee
Singleton, Lisa Walters, and Len Williams. Plummer alleges
that she is disabled, but she did not allege any facts about
has worked for the Housing Authority since 1999. In November
2016, Plummer filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging age, religion,
and disability discrimination. Compl. 19, ECF No. 1. Plummer
received a right-to-sue letter in May 2017. She
“decided not to file a law suit at that time.”
alleges that since November 2016, she has applied for
“numerous positions” but has not been granted an
interview. Id. And, after Plummer received the May
17, 2017 right-to-sue letter, she was (1) denied time off for
doctor's visits, (2) denied a lateral transfer, and (3)
denied reasonable accommodations for her disability.
Id. She further alleges that in August 2017,
“several positions were filled by applicants who are
less qualified.” Id. at 19; accord
Id. at 2, ¶ 7. Plummer asserts that she was denied
these opportunities “because of her (Retaliation),
Religion Age or Sex and Disability [sic].” Id.
at 3, ¶ 10; accord Id. at 3, ¶ 14. And she
alleges that Defendants told her that because of her
disability, she would not be able to perform any duties other
than those she was already assigned. Id. at 3,
¶ 10; id. at 2, ¶ 8. Plummer also claims
that Defendants changed her pay “in a disparate manner
from similarly situated white employees.” Id.
at 3, ¶ 9.
filed another EEOC charge of discrimination in November 2017.
In that EEOC charge, Plummer alleges that Defendants
discriminated against her based on her disability. Compl.
Attach. 1, Nov. 2017 EEOC Charge 1, ECF No. 1-1. She also
claims that Defendants retaliated against her for filing a
prior EEOC charge and for complaining of discrimination and
harassment. Id. And, Plummer asserts that she
experienced additional harassment after she filed the
November 2017 EEOC charge. Compl. 19.
brought this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17
(“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 to 634
(“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 to 12117
(“ADA”). Compl. 17. She also invoked the
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 42
U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Civil
Rights Act of 1871. Id. at 1.
seek dismissal of all of Plummer's claims. They contend
that her claims against the individual Defendants are not
permitted under the law, that her Thirteenth Amendment claim
fails as a matter of law, that some of her claims are
untimely, that some of her claims are barred for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies, and that her remaining
claims are not supported by specific factual assertions as
required by the law. The Court addresses each argument in
Claims Against the ...