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.

Jones v. Amber

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division

April 23, 2018

RIMA JONES, Plaintiff,
v.
AMBER et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          David J. Hale, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Rima Jones filed a pro se complaint alleging employment discrimination and retaliation while employed at Wal Mart based on her national origin and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KCRA); based on her disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and based on her age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). She also alleges criminal conduct by some of the Defendants. Plaintiff included her right-to-sue letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

         Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, this Court is required to screen the complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608-09 (6th Cir. 1997), overruled on other grounds by Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). For the reasons stated herein, the Court will allow Plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims to proceed against Defendant Wal Mart and dismiss her claims against the other Defendants.

         I.

         Plaintiff filed an original complaint on her own paper (Docket No. 1). Plaintiff listed the Defendant as “Wal Mart et al.” in the caption of the complaint. The Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on the Court-approved form for an employment discrimination claim (DN 5). That Order provided that the amended complaint would supersede the original, handwritten complaint. Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint on the Court-approved form (DN 6). The amended complaint lists as Defendants the following four individuals who are employees of a Wal Mart store located in Louisville, Kentucky: Amber Weigand, identified by Plaintiff as a Manager Trainee; Wesley McCarty, identified as a Manager Trainee; Joanna Gilley, identified as a Store Manager; and Beverly Salazar, for whom Plaintiff lists her job title as “Unknown.”

         Because of discrepancies in the way Plaintiff wrote her first and last name in the amended complaint, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to modify the amended complaint's caption and signature page to reflect her full and correct name (DN 7). Plaintiff then filed another amended complaint (DN 9). Upon review of this amended complaint (DN 9), the Court concludes that the filing is a photocopy of the amended complaint. To clarify the docket sheet, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to modify the docket sheet to reflect that the amended complaint docketed at ¶ 9 is a photocopy of the amended complaint.

         Plaintiff next filed another amended complaint, which is comprised of only the first two pages of the Court-approved form for filing a complaint for a civil case (DN 10). The form lists the Defendant in the caption as “Wal Mart, et al.” The Court construes the filing as a motion for leave to amend to add Wal Mart as a Defendant to this action. Nothing that Plaintiff named Wal Mart as a Defendant in her original, handwritten complaint, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for leave to amend the complaint (DN 10) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-docket the amended complaint docketed at ¶ 10 as the second amended complaint.

         In addition, the docket sheet lists “Amber at Deli” and “Security Guy” as Defendants. Defendant Amber Weigand is presumably the same person as “Amber at Deli.” Plaintiff did not list “Security Guy” as a Defendant in the amended or second amended complaint. Therefore, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate “Amber at Deli” and “Security Guy” as parties to this action.

         II.

         According to the amended complaint and attachments, Plaintiff was employed by Wal Mart as a cashier from April 26, 2016, to March 4, 2017. She alleges that she was subjected to discrimination and harassment by supervisors and other employees and that she was terminated in retaliation for complaining about such conduct. In addition to her allegations of discrimination, Plaintiff states as Count VII of her action,

CRIMINAL THREATS, THREATS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST AN INDIVIDUAL, THREATEN DEATH OF BODILY HARM, PHYSICAL THREAT, INTENTIONALLY PLACE ANOTHER PERSON IN FEAR OF IMMINENT SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, THREATENS TO COMMIT ANY CRIME OF VIOLENCE WITH THE INTENT TO TERRORIZE ANOTHER AND WITH RECKLESS DISREGARDS OF THE RISK OF CAUSING TERROR/INCONVENIENCE.

         She alleges that Defendant Salazar, her co-worker, “threaten[ed] to commit a crime of violence upon Plaintiff with intent to terrorize Plaintiff.” As Count VIII of the complaint, she alleges that Defendant Weigand engaged in money laundering.

         III.

         Upon review, a district court must dismiss a case at any time if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a ...


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.