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.

Snyder v. Ohio Electric Motors, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division

March 15, 2018

RANDALL R. SNYDER JR., Plaintiff,
v.
OHIO ELECTRIC MOTORS, INC., KEN COOPER, ROXANNE WILDE, EMILY RITCHEY, and TOM POZDA, Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

          MARTIN REIDINGER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [Docs. 9, 23]. The Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has responded to both Motions. [Docs. 22, 25].

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On May 24, 2017, the pro se Plaintiff filed this action against his former employer, Ohio Electric Motors, Inc. (“OEM”), and Ken Cooper, Roxanne Wilde, Emily Ritchey, and Tom Pozda (collectively, the “Individual Defendants”), alleging employment discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), et seq. (“Title VII”).

         In his Complaint, the Plaintiff claims that his employment was terminated on April 13, 2016, after Ken Cooper and others at OEM “unfairly chose to hold [Plaintiff] solely accountable” for the presence of his same sex partner at a company lunch following a business meeting. [Complaint, Doc. 1 at 2, 3]. The Plaintiff further alleges that, rather than “a simple termination, ” Defendant Cooper searched through the Plaintiff's company-issued cell phone and collected an image that he then shared with others at OEM before turning it over to the Asheville Police Department. [Id. at 3]. The Plaintiff was subsequently charged with two felonies. [Id.]. Despite having been charged with criminal offenses for the image contained on the company-issued phone, the Plaintiff claims the real reason for his termination was “founded in Ken Cooper's efforts to cause and do harm to me for exposing and reporting his [unspecified] inappropriate behavior toward me and others while under the influence of alcohol.” [Id.].

         On July 28, 2017, the Individual Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 9]. The Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to this Motion on October 2, 2017. [Doc. 22]. On October 5, 2017, OEM filed a separate Motion to Dismiss. [Doc. 23]. The Plaintiff filed a Response in opposition to OEM's Motion on October 19, 2017. [Doc. 25].

         Having been fully briefed, this matter is ripe for disposition.

         II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The central issue for resolving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is whether the claims state a plausible claim for relief. See Francis v. Giacomelli, 588 F.3d 186, 189 (4th Cir. 2009). In considering the Defendants' motions, the Court accepts the allegations in the Complaint as true and construes them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff. Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v.Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 253 (4th Cir. 2009); Giacomelli, 588 F.3d at 190-92. Although the Court accepts well-pled facts as true, it is not required to accept “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, and bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement....” Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255; see also Giacomelli, 588 F.3d at 189.

         The claims need not contain “detailed factual allegations, ” but must contain sufficient factual allegations to suggest the required elements of a cause of action. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); see also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256. “[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Nor will mere labels and legal conclusions suffice. Id. Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “demands more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

         The Complaint is required to contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; see also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255. “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.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. See also Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 255. The mere possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully is not sufficient for a claim to survive a motion to dismiss. Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256; Giacomelli, 588 F.3d at 193. Ultimately, the well-pled factual allegations must move a plaintiff's claim from possible to plausible. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Consumeraffairs.com, 591 F.3d at 256.

         IV. DISCUSSION

         A. Individual Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

         The Individual Defendants move to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims against them on the grounds that there is no ...


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.