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.

Deshuk v. G4 Secure Solutions

United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

March 8, 2017

Ronald Deshuk, Plaintiff,
G4 Secure Solutions, Defendant.


          PATRICIA A. GAUGHAN United States District Judge


         This matter is before the Court upon defendant's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. 18). This is an employment discrimination case. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART. Count one is dismissed to the extent it asserts a claim for retaliation. All other claims remain pending.


         Plaintiff Ronald Deshuk brings this action against defendant G4S Secure Solutions alleging wrongdoing in connection with a change in his employment schedule.

         For purposes of ruling on the motion, the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint are presumed true. Plaintiff has worked as a security guard for defendant for approximately six years. Defendant's workers work in three shifts. The first shift consists primarily of “younger females, ” while the second and third shifts consist primarily of workers who are “older males.” At a meeting held in July of 2014, plaintiff and other employees complained to management that the female security guards working the first shift were receiving better treatment than the workers assigned to the second and third shifts. According to the complaint, the site manager expressed displeasure “about the meeting and those who attended.” Later that month, defendant changed the work schedules of the second and third shifts only. The new schedule eliminated “off weekends, ” and replaced them with days off during the week.

         Thereafter, plaintiff filed a written charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). In his charge, plaintiff indicated that the discrimination is based on “sex” and “age.” Plaintiff did not check the box for “retaliation.” The charge further provides:

I have worked at the Republic Steel location in Lorain for over 6 years. On 07/23/2014 the schedules were changed for 2nd and 3rd shift only. 1st shift did not change at all. 1st shift is comprised of all female employees with the exception of the site manager, Dan Laska (male, 30's). I contacted Teddy Reed about my concerns with the scheduling and asked if Ron Cerny (male, age unknown), Area Supervisor and Peter Lucic (male, age unknown), General Manager could call me back. I was never contacted.
It is my belief that Dan has issues working with older employees due to the fact that Dan constantly makes negative comments about the older workers. In the past two months we have had two older security guards forced out of the job, Denver Casto and Al Conger.

         Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC and, thereafter, filed this lawsuit. The complaint contains two causes of action. The first cause appears to allege federal claims of sex discrimination, age discrimination, and retaliation. The second cause of action appears to assert similar claims under state law. Plaintiff further alleges in paragraph two of the complaint that this is a proceeding for a “declaratory judgment” and “preliminary and permanent injunction.” In his “wherefore” clause, plaintiff further seeks damages.

         Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff opposes the motion.


         When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the allegations of the complaint must be taken as true and construed liberally in favor of the plaintiff. Lawrence v. Chancery Court of Tenn., 188 F.3d 687, 691 (6th Cir. 1999). Notice pleading requires only that the defendant be given “fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Conley, 355 U.S. at 47. However, the complaint must set forth “more than the bare assertion of legal conclusions.” Allard v. Weitzman (In Re DeLorean Motor Co.), 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir. 1993). Legal conclusions and unwarranted factual inferences are not accepted as true, nor are mere conclusions afforded liberal Rule 12(b)(6) review. Fingers v. Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District, 101 F.3d 702 (6th Cir. Nov. 21, 1996), unpublished. Dismissal is proper if the complaint lacks an allegation regarding a required element necessary to obtain relief. Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 899 F.2d 485, 489-490 (6th Cir. 1990).

         In addition, a claimant must provide “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 569 (2007). A pleading that offers “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1955 (2009). Nor does a complaint ...

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.