United States District Court, D. Arizona
Janette R. Archer, Plaintiff,
Partners in Recovery LLC, Defendant.
Dominic W. Lanza United Slates District Judge.
before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim and Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction Or, in the Alternative, for a More Definite
Statement. (Doc. 36.) As explained below, the Court will
partially grant and partially deny the motion.
following facts, which the Court assumes to be true for
purposes of ruling on the pending motion, are derived from
Plaintiff Janette Archer's (“Plaintiff”)
first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. 33.)
is a registered nurse who was hired by Defendant in 2014.
(Id. ¶ 7.) Plaintiff has adult attention
deficit disorder (“ADD”), which made it difficult
for her to keep written notes as required by Defendant's
employment policies. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)
Defendant issued Plaintiff a smart phone as an accommodation,
thereby allowing her to dictate her notes. (Id.
¶ 11.) Plaintiff lost the phone and requested a
replacement (at her own expense) but Defendant denied the
request. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) Plaintiff
contacted the Human Resources Department (“HR”)
and requested a “mobile device with electronic
note-taking capabilities.” (Id. ¶ 15.)
Defendant then issued Plaintiff a laptop with dictation
software. (Id. ¶ 16.) The laptop was unwieldy,
often needed to be charged, had poor Wi-Fi connection, and
had inadequate dictation software. (Id. ¶¶
17-18.) Plaintiff contacted HR and provided a doctor's
note stating Plaintiff needed a handheld device to complete
her work. (Id. ¶¶ 19-21.) Defendant
eventually complied and issued Plaintiff a phone; however,
she struggled to configure the phone and contacted the
Information and Technology Department (“IT”) for
assistance. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22.) IT also
struggled to configure the phone. (Id. ¶ 21.)
IT treated Plaintiff “with distrust and ridicule,
” accusing her of causing the software's
malfunction, which Plaintiff denies. (Id. ¶
subsequently began monitoring Plaintiff more closely at work.
(Id. ¶ 25.) From August 4, 2017 to October 2,
2017, Plaintiff was reprimanded five times- four for making
unauthorized changes to her accommodation equipment and one
for discussing “political, ideological, and/or
religious matters in the workplace.” (Id.
¶¶ 26- 31.) Plaintiff alleges that she recalls
other employees discussing similar topics without discipline.
(Id. ¶ 27.) During this time, Plaintiff also
requested time off related to her ADD, but Defendant denied
the request. (Id. ¶ 32.)
about November 14, 2017, a traffic enforcement officer pulled
Plaintiff over while she was driving to work. (Id.
¶ 34.) Plaintiff reported this incident to Defendant,
which investigated. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 38.) This
investigation included obtaining “a motor vehicle
report, ” which was provided by a third-party company
called SambaSafety. (Id. ¶ 38.) Amanda
Morales told Plaintiff the report showed
“that Plaintiff had a suspended license.”
(Id.) This statement was inaccurate-Plaintiff's
license wasn't suspended. (Id. ¶¶ 40,
42.) Plaintiff told Ms. Morales that her license wasn't
suspended, but Defendant “nevertheless terminated
Plaintiff's employment.” (Id. ¶ 40.)
The sole reason Defendant provided for the termination
decision was the suspended license. (Id.)
Count I of the FAC, Plaintiff asserts a claim under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42
U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., for disability
discrimination, failure to accommodate, harassment, hostile
work environment, and retaliation. (Id. ¶¶
44-56.) In Counts II, III, and IV of the FAC, Plaintiff
asserts various state-law claims that are discussed in more
detail infra. (Id. ¶¶ 64-85.)
now moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or alternatively, for a
more definite statement. (Doc. 36.)
survive a motion to dismiss, a party must allege
‘sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
In re Fitness Holdings Int'l, Inc., 714 F.3d
1141, 1144 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). “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. (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
“[A]ll well-pleaded allegations of material fact in the
complaint are accepted as true and are construed in the light
most favorable to the non-moving party.” Id.
at 1144-45 (quotation omitted). However, the court need not
accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679-80. The court also may
dismiss due to “a lack of a cognizable legal
theory.” Mollett v. Netflix, Inc., 795 F.3d
1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted).
Motion to Dismiss