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.

Forsyth v. NHC Place/Anniston LLC Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Eastern Division

October 10, 2018

SHARON FORSYTH, Plaintiff,
v.
NHC PLACE/ANNISTON, LLC, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          KARON OWEN BOWDRE CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This case is before the court on Defendant NHC Place/Anniston, LLC, Inc.'s (“NHC Place”) motion to dismiss Plaintiff Sharon Forsyth's state law claim under the Alabama Age Discrimination in Employment Act, §§ 25-1-20 to -29, (“AADEA”), as duplicative of her federal claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, §§ 29 U.S.C. 621-34, (“ADEA”). (Doc. 7). Defendant NHC Place asserts that § 25-1-29 expressly prohibits bringing simultaneous claims under the ADEA and the AADEA. (Doc. 7, at 2). Ms. Forsyth counters that § 25-1-29 only prohibits simultaneous proceedings in federal and state courts. (Doc. 9, at ¶ 2). The parties now move this court to interpret the statutory language of Alabama Code § 25-1-29 (1975). For the following reasons, this court interprets the statutory language to prohibit simultaneous claims under the ADEA and AADEA and will GRANT Defendant's motion to dismiss Count I of Plaintiff's complaint as to the claim under the AADEA. Plaintiff will be permitted to proceed on Count I as to her ADEA claim.

         I. Standard of Review

          A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss attacks the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Generally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require only that the complaint provide a “‘short and plain statement of the claim' that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). The Supreme Court explained that “[t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain 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 Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). A complaint states a facially plausible claim for relief “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted).

         The court accepts all factual allegations as true on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). See, e.g., Grossman v. Nationsbank, N.A., 225 F.3d 1228, 1231 (11th Cir. 2000). However, legal conclusions unsupported by factual allegations are not entitled to that assumption of truth. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.

         II. Factual Background

         Plaintiff Sharon Forsyth brought this age discrimination action against Defendant NHC Place under the ADEA and the AADEA. Defendant's motion to dismiss does not raise any factual questions and does not challenge the legal sufficiency of Ms. Forsyth's complaint in stating a claim for relief under either the ADEA or the AADEA. Rather, NHC Place asks this court to resolve a purely legal question and to interpret the AADEA to prohibit simultaneous claims under the ADEA and AADEA.

         III. Discussion

         Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law. Williams v. Homestake Mortg. Co., 968 F.2d 1137, 1139 (11th Cir. 1992) (citing Young v. Commissioner, 926 F.2d 1083, 1089 (11th Cir. 1991)). The question of law before the court is one of pure statutory interpretation and therefore is appropriate for review under a motion to dismiss.

         Alabama Code § 25-1-29 either permits or prevents Ms. Forsyth from bringing the Alabama ADEA claim in addition to her federal ADEA claim. The relevant portion of the Alabama statute at issue reads as follows:

Any person aggrieved may elect to pursue their remedies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act 29 U.S.C. Section 621 or in the alternative bring a civil action in the circuit court of the county in which the person was or is employed for such legal or equitable relief as will effectuate the purposes of this article. However, if an action is brought in the federal court, any action pending in the state court shall be simultaneously dismissed with prejudice.

Ala. Code § 25-1-29 (1975).

         The Eleventh Circuit has yet to address whether § 25-1-29 permits simultaneous claims under the ADEA and AADEA, but judges in the Northern District of Alabama and the Middle District of Alabama have come to contrary conclusions. The Middle District addressed the issue first in Wallace v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., when Judge Myron Thompson concluded “the statute expresses an intent to avoid redundant adjudications of the same dispute in two separate fora . . . to conserve the judicial resources of Alabama state courts, not to make claims unavailable for simultaneous pursuit in a single forum.” 68 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1304 (M.D. Ala. 1999). Several Middle District of Alabama Magistrate Judges have reached the same conclusion, often deferring to the initial analysis of the Wallace decision and allowing simultaneous claims under the ADEA and AADEA to move forward together. See McDowell v. Massey Auto, No. 2:16-CV-3-MHT-WC, 2017 WL 2624226, at *14 (M.D. Ala. May 15, 2017); Capizzi v. Rheem Mfg. Co., No. 2:15-CV-276-PWG, 2016 WL 4238641, at *3 (M.D. Ala. Aug. 9, 2016); Redmon v. Massey Auto, No. 2:13-CV-313-SRW, 2014 WL 2855023, at *11 n. 17 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 29, 2014).

         Judges in the Northern District of Alabama have consistently reached the opposite conclusion. In Henry v. Jefferson County Personnel Board, Judge David Proctor concluded that “the plain language of the Alabama Age Act forces a plaintiff choose either suit under the ADEA or, in the alternative, suit under the Alabama Age Act.” 519 F.Supp.2d 1171, 1185-86 (N.D. Ala. 2007) (emphasis in original). In a later case, Magistrate Judge John Ott considered both Judge Proctor's analysis in Henry and Judge Thompson's analysis in Wallace and found Judge Proctor's reasoning to be more persuasive. Collins v. Compass Group, Inc., 965 F.Supp.2d 1321, 1330-1331 (N.D. Ala. 2013) (Report and Recommendation adopted by Judge Abdul Kallon). Finally, Judge C. Lynwood Smith, relying on Collins, has twice ruled to ...


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.