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.

Washington v. Levy Food Service

United States District Court, District of Columbia

June 26, 2019

THOMASINE WASHINGTON, Plaintiff,
v.
LEVY FOOD SERVICE, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          AMY BERMAN JACKSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Thomasine Washington (“plaintiff”) filed her complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on October 17, 2018. Levy Premium Foodservice Limited Partnership (“Levy Foodservice”) removed the case on November 26, 2018, and filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 6) with a supporting memorandum (ECF No. 6-1, “Def.'s Mem.”) on December 3, 2018. The Court issued an Order (ECF No. 7) directing plaintiff to file her opposition or other response to the motion by January 3, 2019. Plaintiff did not comply with the Order, and on January 18, 2019, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order (ECF Nos. 9-10) dismissing the complaint and this civil action without prejudice. See Washington v. Levy Food Serv., No. 18-cv-2742, 2019 WL 266328, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 18, 2019).

         On January 23, 2019, the Clerk of Court received documents from plaintiff and opened a new case, Civ. No. 19-0144. The Court construed this submission and its exhibits instead as a motion to reconsider the dismissal of Civ. No. 18-2742 (ECF No. 12), granted plaintiff's motion, reopened Civ. No. 18-2742, vacated its prior Memorandum Opinion and Order, set March 25, 2019 as the deadline for plaintiff's opposition or other response to Levy Foodservice's motion to dismiss, and terminated Civ. No. 19-0144. The Clerk of Court received plaintiff's opposition to Levy Foodservice's motion on March 22, 2019, and the Court granted leave to file it (ECF No. 17, “Pl.'s Opp'n”) on April 4, 2019.

         It is apparent from the materials provided by plaintiff that she has in fact received medical attention for certain conditions that are of great concern to her, and that she is dissatisfied with the manner in which she was treated by her former employer. Those things can be very frustrating and disappointing. But the complaint, even when read in connection with all of the other pleadings in the case, and even when plaintiff is given the benefit of all inferences that can be drawn from her pleadings, is simply too vague, and it contains too few facts, to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Following a statement of the court's jurisdiction, the narrative portion of plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1-2 (“Compl.”) states:

I was wrongful [sic] Termination [sic] from my job[.] I had medical excuse I have my paper work from my doctor telling I needed breaks not to stand on my foot for 6 hr. a day the medical prombles [sic] to be set down in a chair in the stand but I told I had go down in the break room.

Id. at 3 (page number designated by ECF). The complaint concludes with a demand for judgment in the sum of $12, 000. Id. Attachments to the complaint show that plaintiff filed a formal charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on August 30, 2018, the particulars of which were:

I am currently employed with [Levy Foodservice] and have been since 2008. My job classification is Line Prep.
I have been subjected to a hostile work environment . . . since 2016. They criticized my attire daily. I reported to Human Resources Department. They did not take any action. I am an individual with a disability. Respondent is aware of my disability. On or about June 2016, I give the doctor notes to a Human Resources representative. She refused to look at my documents. I tried to explain to her that I needed reasonable accommodations.
I believe I have been denied an accommodation and discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.

Id., Ex. 2 (Charge of Discrimination) (exhibit numbers designated by the Court) at 1. Also attached to the complaint is a copy of the EEOC's September 5, 2018 notice that, “[b]ased upon its investigation, EEOC [was] unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes.” Id., Ex. 1 (Dismissal and Notice of Rights) at 1.[1]

         The Court construes the complaint as one raising a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), alleging that Levy Foodservice discriminated against plaintiff by “not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical . . . limitations of an otherwise qualified ...


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.