Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Cardenas v. Taco Bell KFC

United States District Court, D. Maine

August 25, 2017

TACO BELL KFC, et al., Defendants


          John C. Nivison, U.S. Magistrate Judge

         In this action, Plaintiff Elena Cardenas alleges that Defendants Taco Bell KFC and Ronald H. Giles sent her home from work when she suffered from a medical condition. Plaintiff seeks money damages and reinstatement to her position.

         Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), which application the Court granted. (ECF No. 5.) In accordance with the in forma pauperis statute, a preliminary review of Plaintiff's complaint and amended complaint is appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

         On July 19, 2017, I recommended the Court dismiss the complaint unless Plaintiff amended her complaint on or before August 2, 2017, to state an actionable claim. (Recommended Decision, ECF No. 6.) On July 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed an additional pleading, which was docketed as an amended complaint. (Amended Complaint, ECF No. 7.) Accordingly, the matter is before the Court for further review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). After review of the amended complaint, I recommend the Court dismiss the amended complaint.

         Factual Background

         In her complaint, Plaintiff alleged that when she suffered from Bell's Palsy, her employer told her to go home because she could not see the computer. (Complaint at 4 -5, ECF No. 1.) According to Plaintiff, she was medically restricted at the time. (Id.)

         In her amended complaint, Plaintiff has alleged that she worked for Defendant for eight years and was only able to see with one eye. (Amended Complaint at 4, ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff asserts that her employer told her she could not work in her condition because she could not do a good job. (Id. at 4 - 5.) Plaintiff still experiences symptoms related to her condition. (Id. at 5.)

         Standard of Review

         The federal in forma pauperis statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1915, is designed to ensure meaningful access to the federal courts for those persons unable to pay the costs of bringing an action. When a party is proceeding in forma pauperis, however, “the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines, ” inter alia, that the action is “frivolous or malicious” or “fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted” or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). “Dismissals [under § 1915] are often made sua sponte prior to the issuance of process, so as to spare prospective defendants the inconvenience and expense of answering such complaints.” Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 324 (1989).

         When considering whether a complaint states a claim for which relief may be granted, a court must assume the truth of all well-plead facts and give the plaintiff the benefit of all reasonable inferences therefrom. Ocasio-Hernandez v. Fortuno-Burset, 640 F.3d 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2011). A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if it does not plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007).

         Although a pro se plaintiff's complaint is subject to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, ” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), this is “not to say that pro se plaintiffs are not required to plead basic facts sufficient to state a claim, Ferranti v. Moran, 618 F.2d 888, 890 (1st Cir. 1980). To allege a civil action in federal court, it is not enough for a plaintiff merely to allege that a defendant acted unlawfully; a plaintiff must affirmatively allege facts that identify the manner by which the defendant subjected the plaintiff to a harm for which the law affords a remedy. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).


         As discussed in the prior recommended decision, Plaintiff arguably intends to assert a claim of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 - 12117, 2000e-5, and/or the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA), 5 M.R.S. § 4572.

         To state a claim of disability discrimination in employment, Plaintiff must allege facts showing (1) that her impairment qualified as a disability as defined by the ADA or MHRA; (2) that she was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation; and (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action in whole or in part because of her disability. Lang v. Wal-Mart Stores E., ...

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.