United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
SHARON LOVELACE BLACKBURN, District Judge.
This case is currently before the court on defendant United States Steel Corporation's ("U.S. Steel") Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, (doc. 14),  plaintiff's response in opposition (styled as "Brief in Support of Motion for Continuance of Case"), (doc. 18), which the court will follow U.S. Steel's lead in treating as a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and U.S. Steel's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 19). The court finds that U.S. Steel's Motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Alonzo Lewis ("plaintiff"), proceeding pro se, filed this action against U.S. Steel and certain U.S. Steel employees, asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). (Doc. 1 at 9-10.) Plaintiff's claims arise from his participation in and dismissal from U.S. Steel's Electronic Technician Training Program ("the Training Program"). ( Id. ) U.S. Steel filed a Motion to Dismiss, (doc. 4), which the court found meritorious. ( See doc. 11.) However, in light of plaintiff's pro se status, the court afforded plaintiff the opportunity to replead his claims. In its Memorandum Opinion, the court explained in depth why the Complaint did not allege "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 Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) (internal quotations omitted). The court gave plaintiff the chance to amend his complaint so that, if possible, he could file an amended complaint that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint, (doc. 13),  which alleges the following:
1. Plaintiff wears hearing aids.
2. He "filed a complaint" while in "the Training Program." (Doc. 13 at 2.)
3. Afterward, he was "harassed even more": his white supervisor ("D.J. Guy") told him that Guy "had been talking to [the director of the program] about [plaintiff], " that "it appears [plaintiff] already ha[d] a few problems, " and that Guy did not "think [plaintiff] [was] going to make it in the program." ( Id. at 1-2.)
4. On certain "occasions" plaintiff asked Guy to repeat instructions, and Guy responded "I'll get back with you, " but then did not. ( Id. at 2.)
5. Although the rules of the program had originally allowed students to "remediate" failed tests, the students were told in October 2010, during the "middle of [the] course program outline, " that "the rules had changed." ( Id. at 2.)
6. Plaintiff "failed a test after these instructions" and was denied his request to "remediate" by the program director. ( Id. )
7. Plaintiff did not receive certain pay incentives.
( See doc. 13.)
The Amended Complaint seeks as relief "all [p]ay that [plaintiff] did not receive as a Learner in the M T E program, as well as all incentives due to [plaintiff] from that time, ...