Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Maynard v. Three Rivers Medical Clinics, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Northern Division, Ashland

February 6, 2018

MARJORIE MAYNARD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
THREE RIVERS MEDICAL CLINICS, INC., DEFENDANT.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          HENRY R. WILHOIT, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Three Rivers Medical Clinic, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 7]. The matter has been fully briefed by the parties [Docket Nos. 7-1, 8 and 12]. For the reasons stated herein, the Court finds that Plaintiff has plead a claim upon which relief can be granted and, therefore, Defendant's motion will be overruled.

         I.

         This cases arises from Plaintiffs employment, and subsequent termination, by Three Rivers Medical Clinics, Inc. ("TRMC"). In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that her employment was terminated on October 21, 2015 in violation of "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S. 1983 and KRS 344." [Complaint, Docket No. 1-1, ¶¶ 3 and 4]. She further states that prior to filing this lawsuit, she filed a charge of age discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a copy of which is attached to her Complaint. Id. at ¶ 4.

         In the Charge of Discrimination, Plaintiff states:

I am 56 year old. In August 2015, Glenna Crum (over 60 years of age), Office Manager, requested me to resign. In October 2015, Dr. Melissa Fletcher gave me verbal permission to administer a medical procedure. On October 21, 2015, 1 was terminated from my position which I believe was due to my age rather than any legitimate reason and not given the opportunity for progressive discipline. Other younger employees were not discharged for the same reasons which are common practices. II. Management is responsible for the above actions. IE. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.

Id. at Exhibit 2.

         In July of 2017, the EEOC closed its investigation without finding any violation of law and issued a Notice of Dismissal and Right to Sue, which are attached to the Complaint. Id. at ¶ 5. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered "economic damages, damage to her reputation, physical and mental pain and suffering, due to intentional infliction of emotional distress" following her discharge. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 10. Plaintiff further alleges she is entitled to punitive damages. Id. at ¶ 11.

         The Complaint was filed in Lawrence County Circuit Court and then removed by Defendant, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441 and 1446. This Court sustained the removal.

         TRMC seeks Dismissal of all claims alleged herein, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(6).

         II.

         In scrutinizing a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6), the Court is required to "accept all well-pleaded factual allegations of the complaint as true and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Dubay v. Wells, 506 F.3d 422, 426 (6th Cir.2007). A complaint need not contain "detailed factual allegations". However, it must allege more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Bell All. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). A complaint will withstand a motion to dismiss if it "contain[s] 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, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). A complaint has "facial plausibility" if the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Hensley Mfg. v. ProPride, Inc., 579 F.3d 603, 609 (6th Cir.2009) (quotingIqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949).

         III.

         Under the ADEA and the KCRA, it is unlawful for an employer "to discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.