United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Asheville Division
MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION
Carleton Metcalf, United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss by
Defendants Dee Hunley and Karen Reid (Doc. 7) and a Motion to
Dismiss by Defendant Hand and Stone Massage and Facial Spa
(Doc. 10). The Motions have been referred to the
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The
issues have been fully briefed, and the matter is now ripe
for ruling. Following a review of the parties'
submissions and applicable authorities, and for the reasons
addressed below, the undersigned recommends that the Motions
to Dismiss be granted.
proceeding pro se, initiated this employment
discrimination action on September 12, 2018. See
Compl. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff also filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis, which was granted.
See (Doc. 3).
November 26, 2018, Hunley and Reid filed their Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 7) and a Memorandum in Support (Doc. 8).
same day, H&S Asheville filed its Answer (Doc. 9).
December 20, 2018, H&S Asheville filed its Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 10) and a Memorandum in Support (Doc.
March 5, 2019, the Court advised Plaintiff regarding the
pending motions and extended the deadline for Plaintiff to
filed a timely response (Doc. 14), and Defendants replied
Plaintiff's Complaint in the light most favorable to her,
the facts appear to be as follows:
Plaintiff was an employee of H&S Asheville. Compl. (Doc.
1) at 3. Plaintiff's Complaint does not describe the
business of H&S Asheville, but the undersigned will
presume its assumed name is self-explanatory.
was the spa manager, and Reid was a “spa
associate.” Id. at 2.
alleges that she was discriminated against in October and
November of 2017 in the following ways: (1) Plaintiff's
employment was terminated; (2) her disability was not
accommodated; (3) there were unequal terms and conditions of
her employment; (4) she was retaliated against; (5) she was
kicked and told to “stay in the back”; (6) her
name was slandered; and (7) her service dog was kicked out,
and proof was demanded that the animal was a service dog.
Id. at 3, 4, 6.
alleges that this discrimination was directed toward her
because of her disability. In particular, Plaintiff describes
herself as being mentally disabled and suffering from bipolar
disorder, type I; borderline personality disorder; and
psychotic tendencies. Id. at 4.
Plaintiff's employment was terminated, she “went
into psychosis” and was admitted ...