United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Southern Division
DAVID PROCTOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
case is before the court on the Motion to Dismiss filed by
Defendant Jefferson County 911 Emergency Communications
District, Inc. (“Jefferson County 911” or
“Defendant”). (Doc. # 13). The parties have fully
briefed the Motion. (Docs. # 14, 17, 18). For the reasons
explained below, the court finds that the Motion to Dismiss
(Doc. # 13) is due to be granted.
October 2013, Plaintiff Stan McAdams (“McAdams”
or “Plaintiff”) began his employment with
Jefferson County 911 as a dispatcher for 911 fire services.
(Doc. # 10 at ¶ 9). McAdams was later promoted to a POD
leader position. (Id.). In November 2014, he was
diagnosed with and treated for Multiple Sclerosis and had to
take off approximately three months of work. (Id. at
¶ 10). On December 9, 2015, McAdams was promoted to
Night Shift supervisor for fire dispatch. (Id. at
in late 2016 or early 2017, it became increasingly difficult
for McAdams to work the night shift because of his Multiple
Sclerosis. (Id. at ¶ 16). McAdams presented the
Chief Operations Officer (“COO”) with a letter
from his physician requesting an accommodation, and McAdams
requested transfer to a day shift supervisor's position.
(Id. at ¶¶ 17-18). Initially, the COO told
McAdams that there was a “good possibility” that
he would receive his requested transfer; however, later, the
COO informed McAdams that the Director/Chief Executive
Officer (“CEO”) had rejected the transfer.
(Id. at ¶¶ 20-21).
February 2017, the CEO decided to reduce the number of
supervisors from six supervisors to four. (Id. at
¶ 22). One supervisor had previously been demoted,
leaving five individuals to fill these four positions.
(Id. at ¶ 23). On August 8, 2017, each of the
five individuals (including McAdams) were directed to submit
a resume and essay entitled “why I want to be a
supervisor” by August 14, 2017. (Id. at ¶
24). Jefferson County 911 did not select McAdams as one of
the four supervisors. (Id. at ¶ 27). McAdams
contends that he was more qualified than one of the other
selected supervisors and that one of the other selected
supervisors was selected in part due to additional training
he received that McAdams was not allowed to receive.
(Id. at ¶¶ 12-15, 27-28). On September 26,
2017, the CEO, COO, and Chief Administration Officer
(“CAO”) met with McAdams and informed him that he
was being demoted and moved to the day shift. (Id.
at ¶ 29). During this meeting, the CAO told McAdams,
“If you go to the dayshift, it will be better for your
MS.” (Id. at ¶ 30).
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on February 21,
2018. (Doc. # 1-1 at p. 4). On March 28, 2018, the EEOC sent
Plaintiff a Right to Sue Notice, which Plaintiff received on
April 2, 2018. (Docs. # 1-1 at p. 1; 10 at ¶ 4).
Plaintiff filed this action on May 1, 2018. (Doc. # 1). On
June 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint,
alleging Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)
claims related to purported disability discrimination. (Doc.
# 10). On July 6, 2018, Defendant filed its Motion to
Dismiss, arguing that this action is due to be dismissed
because Jefferson County 911 enjoys Eleventh Amendment
immunity from this suit. (Docs. # 13, 14).
Standard of Review
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that a complaint
provide “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). However, the complaint must include
enough facts “to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Pleadings that
contain nothing more than “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action” do not meet Rule 8
standards, nor do pleadings suffice that are based merely
upon “labels and conclusions” or “naked
assertion[s]” without supporting factual allegations.
Id. at 555, 557. In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
to dismiss, courts view the allegations in the complaint in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Watts
v. Fla. Int'l Univ., 495 F.3d 1289, 1295 (11th Cir.
survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must “state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
Although “[t]he plausibility standard is not akin to a
‘probability requirement, '” the complaint
must demonstrate “more than a sheer possibility that a
defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A
plausible claim for relief requires “enough fact[s] to
raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal
evidence” to support the claim. Twombly, 550
U.S. at 556.
considering a motion to dismiss, a court should “1)
eliminate any allegations in the complaint that are merely
legal conclusions; and 2) where there are well-pleaded
factual allegations, ‘assume their veracity and then
determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement
to relief.'” Kivisto v. Miller, Canfield,
Paddock & Stone, PLC, 413 Fed.Appx. 136, 138 (11th
Cir. 2011) (unpublished) (quoting Am. Dental Assn. v.
Cigna Corp., 605 F.3d 1283, 1290 (11th Cir. 2010)). That
task is context specific and, to survive the motion, the
allegations must permit the court based on its
“judicial experience and common sense . . . to infer
more than the mere possibility of misconduct.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. If the court determines that
well-pleaded facts, accepted as true, do not state a claim
that is plausible, the claims are due to be dismissed.
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570.
Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to
extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
against one of the United States by Citizens of another
State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign
State.” U.S. Const. amend. XI. “Although the
express language of the [Eleventh] [A]mendment does not bar
suits against a state by its own citizens, the Supreme Court
has held that an unconsenting state is immune from lawsuits
brought in federal court by the state's own
citizens.” Carr v. City of Florence, Ala., 916
F.2d 1521, 1524 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing Hans v.
Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890)). The Eleventh Amendment
bars suit against ...