United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Lynchburg Division
K. MOON, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Bakra, proceeding pro se, commenced this action by
filing a form complaint for employment discrimination against
“RST Marketing/Et. Al” and “Nick/Workforce
Solutions Et. Al.” (Dkt. 2 (Compl.)). The Plaintiff has
not paid the filing fee but will be granted leave to proceed
in forma pauperis. (See Dkt. 1). For the
following reasons, the Court concludes that the complaint
must be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim on
which relief may be granted. The Plaintiff will, however, be
granted leave to amend his complaint.
following is taken from the complaint and the exhibits
attached to the complaint. See Goines v. Valley Cmty.
Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 166 (4th Cir. 2016) (noting
that the court may consider exhibits to a complaint in
assessing its sufficiency). Plaintiff alleges discrimination
in employment pursuant to (1) the Americans with Disabilities
Act of 1990, for an unspecified disability, and (2) Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, based on his religion. (Dkt.
at 1-4). He claims discriminatory conduct of (1) termination
of his employment, (2) failure to accommodate his disability,
and (3) unequal terms and conditions of his employment.
(Id. at 4).
recitation of the facts of his case, Plaintiff alleges that
his only transportation to and from work was by bicycle and
that he had to travel for weeks until receiving a day off and
could not travel during severe weather conditions and due to
transportation problems. He further alleges that Defendant
Workforce Solutions improperly denied that Plaintiff called
in or texted for his no-shows. He alleges that the day he was
terminated he received notice only during the final two hours
of his workday. (Dkt. 2 at 4-5).
form complaint space for stating relief requested and any
basis for the claimed amount, Plaintiff states that he risked
his life for employment (apparently referring to his travel
to and from work by bicycle). Plaintiff further states:
“Also once I told supervisors I was [M]uslim they acted
different toward me.” He also alleges that he was told
one individual was saying that Plaintiff had “said
nasty conversations.” (Dkt. 2 at 5-6).
alleges he filed a charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding the
alleged discriminatory conduct in October or November 2018.
(Dkt. 2 at 5). The complaint further states that the EEOC
issued a Notice of Right to Sue Letter. (Id.).
Plaintiff subsequently filed an EEOC “Dismissal and
Notice of Rights” dated February 4, 2019. The EEOC
copied RST Marketing, Inc. on the Notice. The Notice informed
Plaintiff of his right to file a lawsuit within 90 days of
his receipt of the Notice. (Dkt. 3). The scope of
Plaintiff's charge filed with the EEOC, however, is
unclear at this time.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), which governs in forma
pauperis proceedings, the court has a duty to screen
initial filings. Eriline Co. S.A. v. Johnson, 440
F.3d 648, 656-57 (4th Cir. 2006). The court must dismiss a
case at any time if the court determines that the action
“fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The
standards for dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) are
the same as those for dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). See De'Lonta v. Angelone,
330 F.3d 630, 633 (4th Cir. 2003). Thus, to survive dismissal
for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual allegations “to raise a right to
relief above the speculative level” and “to state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570
(2007). Further, “a judge must accept as true all of
the factual allegations contained in the complaint” and
accord a liberal construction to a pro se litigant's
pleadings. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94
(2007) (per curiam).
checked the form complaint boxes for employment
discrimination based on (1) disability or perceived
disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), and (2) religion under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Dkt. 2 at 4). Each claim will be
Americans with Disabilities Act Employment Discrimination
of the ADA makes it unlawful for qualifying employers to
“discriminate against a qualified individual” on
the basis of disability in regard to job application
procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of
employees, employee compensation, job training, and other
terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. 42 U.S.C.
§ 12112(a). The term “disability” means (1)
a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one
or more major life activities of an individual, (2) a record
of such impairment, or (3) being regarded as having such an
impairment. Id. § 12102(1). The term
“qualified individual” means an individual who,
with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the
essential functions of the employment position that such
individual holds or desires. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(e).
establish a claim for disability discrimination under the
ADA, a plaintiff must prove that (1) he or she has a
disability within the meaning of the ADA, (2) he or she is a
“qualified individual” for the employment in
question, and (3) that the employer discharged the plaintiff
or took other adverse employment action because of the
disability. Campbell v. StoneMor Partners, LP, No.
3:17-cv-407, 2018 WL 3451390, at *4 (E.D. Va. July 17, 2018),
aff'd, 752 Fed.Appx. 166 (4th Cir. 2019)
(unpublished) (per curiam). Specifically, a plaintiff's
disability must ...