United States District Court, D. Maryland
Lipton Hollander United States District Judge.
employment discrimination case, self-represented plaintiff
Chante Chappell has sued "Baltimore County Public
Schools" under the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et
seq. (the "ADA"). ECF 1 (the
"Complaint"). Plaintiff alleges that, during the
2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years, she was discriminated
against based on her "respiratory" disability.
Id. at 5-6. Specifically, Chappell complains that
defendant failed to provide air conditioning in her
workplace. Id. at 6.
asserts claims for failure to accommodate, unequal terms and
conditions of employment, and retaliation. Id. at 5.
However, she has not specified the requested relief.
Plaintiff explains that her requested relief is "pending
advice from [an] attorney once [she] obtain[s] one."
Id. at 7.
December 10, 2018, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint
(ECF 5), pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), supported by a
memorandum of law. ECF 5-1 (collectively, the
"Motion"). On three occasions between December 19,
2018 and February 26, 2019, Chappell sought (ECF 8; ECF 10;
ECF 13) and I approved (ECF 9; ECF 11; ECF 14) an extension
to respond to the Motion. By Order of February 26, 2019 (ECF
14), I set a response deadline of March 29, 2019.
Nevertheless, Chappell has failed to file an opposition, and
the time do so has expired. See Local Rule 10
hearing is necessary to resolve the Motion. See
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, I shall grant
defendant's Motion, with leave to amend.
February 2016, plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC"). ECF 1 at 6. Chappell received a Notice of
Right to Sue letter on August 20, 2018. Id. This
suit followed on October 31, 2018.
noted, Chappell's claims arise out of her employment with
defendant during the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 school years.
ECF 1 at 5. She alleges that defendant discriminated against
her based on her "respiratory" disability.
Id. at 5.
The facts of the Complaint are set forth below, in their
entirety, id. at 6:
AC was slated by the board of education by the summer of 2017
but wasn't provided. ADA alternative accommodations were
to 1) stand in the hallway/doorway, 2) fans (never provided),
3) inhaler. My working area - Entire new wing of building had
no working AC.
Standard of Review
defendant may test the legal sufficiency of a complaint by
way of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). In re
Birmingham, 846 F.3d 88, 92 (4th Cir. 2017); Goines
v. Valley Cmty. Servs. Bd, 822 F.3d 159, 165-66 (4th
Cir. 2016); McBurney v. Cuccinelli, 616 F.3d 393,
408 (4th Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom., McBurney v.
Young, 569 U.S. 221 (2013); Edwards v. City of.
Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 243 (4th Cir. 1999). A Rule
12(b)(6) motion constitutes an assertion by a defendant that,
even if the facts alleged by a plaintiff are true, the
complaint fails as a matter of law "to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted."
a complaint states a claim for relief is assessed by
reference to the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2). That rule provides that a complaint must contain a
"short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief." The purpose of the rule
is to provide the defendants with "fair notice" of
the claims and the "grounds" for entitlement to
relief. Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544,
survive a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a complaint
must contain facts sufficient to "state a claim to
relief that is plausible on its face." Twombly,
550 U.S. at 570; see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 684 (2009) (citation omitted) ("Our decision in
Twombly expounded the pleading standard for 'all
civil actions'-----"); see also Willner v.
Dimon,849 F.3d 93, 112 (4th Cir. 2017). But, a
plaintiff need not include "detailed factual
allegations" in order to satisfy Rule 8(a)(2).
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Moreover, federal pleading
rules "do not countenance dismissal of a complaint for
imperfect statement of ...