United States District Court, D. Delaware
Ricardo Garcia-Lopez, Newark, Delaware, Pro Se Plaintiff.
Charles Arthur McCauley, III, Esquire, Offit Kurman, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant.
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE:
Ricardo Garcia-Lopez ("Plaintiff) proceeds Pro
se and has been granted leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. He filed this action pursuant to Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e, et seq., and the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§
1201, et seq., alleging employment discrimination by
reason of race and disability. (D.I. 2) Presently before the
Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss, which Plaintiff
opposes. (D.I. 8, 9, 10, 11) For the reasons that follow, the
Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion to
was employed by Defendant G4S Secure Solutions
("Defendant"). His employment was terminated on
April 29, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that he was the only
employee with a worker's compensation case who was
terminated for abandoning his post. (D.I. 2) Plaintiff filed
a charge of discrimination on February 17, 2016 with the
Department of Labor of the State of Delaware. On October 24,
2016, Plaintiff received a right to sue letter from the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (D.I. 2-1)
Plaintiff proceeds pro se, his pleading is liberally
construed and his Complaint, "however inartfully
pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards man formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v.
Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Defendant moves for dismissal pursuant to Rule
a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) requires the Court to accept as true all material
allegations of the complaint. See Spruill v. Gillis,
372 F.3d 218, 223 (3d Cir. 2004). "The issue is not
whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the
claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the
claims." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec.
Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1420 (3d Cir. 1997) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Thus, the Court may grant such a
motion to dismiss only if, after "accepting all
well-pleaded allegations in the complaint as true, and
viewing them in the light most favorable to plaintiff,
plaintiff is not entitled to relief." Maio v. Aetna,
Inc., 221 F.3d 472, 481-82 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
well-pleaded complaint must contain more than mere labels and
conclusions. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662
(2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544
(2007). A plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to show that
a claim has substantive plausibility. See Johnson v. City
of Shelby, ___U.S.___, 135 S.Ct. 346, 347 (2014). A
complaint may not dismissed, however, for imperfect
statements of the legal theory supporting the claim asserted.
See Id. at 346.
the pleading regime established by Twombly and
Iqbal, a court reviewing the sufficiency of a
complaint must take three steps: (1) take note of the
elements the plaintiff must plead to state a claim; (2)
identify allegations that, because they are no more than
conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth; and
(3) when there are well-pleaded factual allegations, assume
their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give
rise to an entitlement to relief. See Connelly v. Lane
Const. Corp., 809 F.3d 780, 787 (3d Cir. 2016). Deciding
whether a claim is plausible will be a "context-specific
task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its
judicial experience and common sense." Iqbal,
556 U.S. at 679.
survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face. See Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC,
765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) (citing Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678 and Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). A claim
is facially plausible "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. At bottom,
"[t]he complaint must state enough facts to raise a
reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence of
[each] necessary element" of a plaintiffs claim.
Wilkerson v. New Media Tech. Charter Sch. Inc., 522
F.3d 315, 321 (3d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks