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.

Taylor v. State, (Dept. of Safety)

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division

November 4, 2019

WILLIAM S. TAYLOR, SR. Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF TENNESSEE (DEPT. OF SAFETY) Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL

          DIANE K. VESCOVO CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         On September 11, 2019, the plaintiff, William S. Taylor, Sr. (“Taylor”), filed a pro se employment complaint on the court-supplied form complaint against the defendant, the State of Tennessee Department of Safety (“the State”), alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 et seq. (“ADA”) and retaliation.[1] (Compl. 1, ECF No. 1.) Accompanying the complaint was a motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 2.), which the court granted on September 23, 2019. (ECF No. 6.) This case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for management and for all pretrial matters for determination and/or report and recommendation as appropriate. (Admin. Order 2013-05, Apr. 29, 2013.) For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that Taylor's sex, age, and disability discrimination and retaliation claims be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         I. PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT

         Taylor filed his complaint on a court-supplied form styled “Complaint.” (Compl., ECF No. 1.) In the space provided for alleging the discriminatory conduct, Taylor checked the boxes for termination of employment, failure to accommodate disability, and retaliation. (Id. at ¶6.) He states that the alleged discriminatory acts occurred on July 18, 2018 and August 17, 2018. (Id. at ¶7.) In describing the circumstances that gave rise to his claims of discrimination, Taylor sets forth the following facts:

“I had to go to juvenile court with my daughter because of domestic [violence] by her [child's father] who also threaten[ed] to kill our family at the hospital . . . I brought in the letter from the [Department of Children's Services] worker and [from] the court when I came back to work, but [I] was still given a warning and put on restricted leave.” (Id. at ¶10)

         In the complaint, Taylor states that he was over 40 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination. (Id. at ¶9.)

         Taylor filed charges against the State with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on November 1, 2018. (Id. at ¶12.) Attached to his complaint is the EEOC Notice of Right to Sue and the EEOC determination letter, which Taylor received on June 26, 2019. (Id. at ¶12.) The EEOC's determination letter notified Taylor that its investigation did not include any allegation of discharge on November 13, 2018 “because the discharge occurred after [he] filed [his] EEOC charge on September 20, 2018.” The letter further instructed him to file a new charge on or before September 9, 2019 for the November 13, 2018 discharge. (Compl., ECF No. 1-1.)

         For relief, Taylor seeks the following: (1) that the State reinstate him; (2) that the State assign him to the job that his VA doctor suggested; (3) that the State pay him $4, 000 per month and interest in back pay beginning November 23, 2018; and (4) that the State pay him compensatory damages for “raises not given” and damage to his “name and character.” (Compl. 6, ECF No. 1.)

         II. PROPOSED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

         A. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) Screening

         Pursuant to Local Rule 4.1(a), service will not issue in a pro se case where the pro se plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis until the complaint has been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The clerk is authorized to issue summonses to pro se litigants only after that review is complete and an order of the court issues.

         This report and recommendation will constitute the court's screening. The court is required to screen in forma pauperis complaints and to dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the action -

(i) is frivolous or malicious;
(ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be ...

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.