United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, El Dorado Division
ORDER
Susan
O. Hickey Chief United States District Judge
Before
the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 6).
Plaintiff has filed a response. (ECF No. 13). Defendant has
filed a reply. (ECF No. 14). The Court finds this matter ripe
for consideration.
BACKGROUND
This is
a disability discrimination action. Defendant, El Dorado
Festivals and Events, Inc. is a corporation that puts on
events and maintains several entertainment venues in El
Dorado, Arkansas. Plaintiff, Brain Mark Givens, was employed
by Defendant as its Executive Vice-President of Entertainment
and Talent Relations. Plaintiff alleges that his employment
was terminated because of his alcoholism in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §
12101 et seq. (“ADA”) and the Arkansas
Civil Rights Act of 1993, A.C.A. § 16-123-107
(“ACRA”).
On
August 6, 2019, Defendant filed the instant motion, arguing
that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he
has failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim for
disability discrimination under the ADA and the ACRA.
Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that he has
sufficiently pled his allegations of disability
discrimination.
LEGAL
STANDARD
To
survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a pleading must provide “a short
and plain statement of the claim that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The Court must accept
as true all factual allegations set forth in the complaint,
drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's
favor. See Ashley Cnty., Ark. v. Pfizer, Inc., 552
F.3d 659, 665 (8th Cir. 2009). However, the 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, 570 (2007)). “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.”
Id.
“The
plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability
requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer
possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Where a
complaint pleads facts that are ‘merely consistent
with' a defendant's liability, it ‘stops short
of the line between possibility and plausibility of
entitlement to relief.'” Id. (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). “Determining
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will
. . . be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.” Id. at 679. In considering a motion to
dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “the complaint should be
read as a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine
whether each allegation, in isolation, is plausible.”
Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594
(8th Cir. 2009).
“A
pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions' or
‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of
action will not do.' Nor does a complaint suffice if it
tenders ‘naked assertions' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.'” Id. (internal
citations and alterations omitted) (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555, 557). In other words, “the pleading
standard Rule 8 announces does not require ‘detailed
factual allegations,' but it demands more than an
unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me
accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555). “[W]here the well-pleaded facts do
not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility
of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not
‘show[n]'-‘that the pleader is entitled to
relief.'” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)).
DISCUSSION
I.
Plaintiff's ADA and ACRA Claims
To
establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination
under the ADA and ACRA, a plaintiff must allege that he: (1)
is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) is qualified
to perform the essential functions of his job, with or
without reasonable accommodation; and (3) has suffered an
adverse employment action because of his
disability.[1] E.E.O.C. v. Prod. Fabricators,
Inc., 763 F.3d 963, 969 (8th Cir. 2014);
Dovenmuehler v. St. Cloud Hosp., 509 F.3d 435, 439
(8th Cir. 2007).
The
Court's analysis begins and ends with whether Plaintiff
has sufficiently pleaded that he is qualified to perform the
essential functions of his job, with or without reasonable
accommodation. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to
make any allegations that he is qualified to perform the
essential functions of his job. Plaintiff responds, arguing
that the Court can infer he is qualified because he has
pleaded that Defendant actively recruited and subsequently
hired him. Plaintiff further argues that he was qualified to
perform the essential functions of his job because he
completed an alcohol rehabilitation program to be considered
for the position.
Upon
consideration, the Court agrees with Defendant.
Plaintiff's Complaint does not contain any allegations
that he was qualified to perform the essential functions of
his job, with or without reasonable accommodation. Moreover,
Plaintiff has cited no authority, and the Court is unaware of
any, allowing the Court to infer that Plaintiff was qualified
based solely on the fact that he was hired by Defendant, or
that he completed an alcohol rehabilitation program to be
considered for the position. Because the Court has found this
element unsatisfied, it is unnecessary to ...