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.

Anglen v. Wendy's-Muy Hamburger Partners LLC

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

February 20, 2018

JACQUELINE D. ANGLEN, Plaintiff,
v.
WENDY'S-MUY HAMBURGER PARTNERS, LLC, et al, Defendants.

          DONALD C. NUGENT JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          JONATHAN D. GREENBERG MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pending before the Court is Defendant MUY Hamburger Partners, LLC's Motion to Dismiss.[1] (Doc. No. 3). For the reasons that follow, it is recommended Defendant's motion be GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

         I. Procedural History

         On November 13, 2017, pro se Plaintiff Jacqueline D. Anglen (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Anglen”), filed a Complaint against MUY Hamburger Partners, LLC, Wendy's Headquarters, and Wendy's Store 3787. (Doc. No. 1 at 1.) Anglen entitled her Complaint “Motion Monetary Compensation to Loss Wages, Motion of Appeal EEOC Discrimination Decision [without] Just Cause, Thereby Prejudice Has Been Shown.” (Id.) Therein, Anglen alleges a virtually incomprehensible claim against Defendants. Specifically, the Complaint provides the following:

THEREFORE, sustained question for consideration shorten investigation without any findings or a report interrupts time for deciding legitimate and or frivolous substance of their work, strong guidelines become binding authenticating that allow the full consideration hereto consequence of appropriations. Plaintiff thereby deprived due process of the Law ascertained and protected hereby all persons born or naturalized in United States. Violation hereof the Laws thereby can establish the principle based on circumstances debatable disciplinary inconclusive omitted complete and finalized. Interpretation breached brought by violation specific corporate charter. In which, must adhere use hereto the terms interchangeably before implantation procedural rules set with protocol, contrary no inability exists there upon findings. Court shall enforce and decide if deemed appropriate compensation due to loss wages.
WHEREAFTER, monetary compensation based upon Plaintiff woefully unprepared consequences related hereto financial crisis sustained.
WHEREAS, I pray Justice set herein Law embodiment of the Court remain in full force and effect. Plaintiff request an investigation along with mediation hearing thereof resolution to just cause, without prejudice.

(Doc. No. 1 at 2, 3.) Several exhibits are attached to Anglen's complaint including (1) a worksheet indicating Anglen was terminated from Wendy's store 3787 on July 1, 2017 due to gross misconduct and insubordination; (2) a worksheet indicating Anglen was terminated from Wendy's store 3787 on July 1, 2017 due to unacceptable attendance; (3) an EEOC Charge of Discrimination form, in which Anglen alleges she was “discriminated against because of [her] age;” (4) an EEOC Intake Questionnaire; (5) an EEOC Decision Not to File a Charge form; and (6) an EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights form. (Doc. Nos. 1-2, 1-3, 1-4.)

         On the same date, November 13, 2017, Anglen concurrently filed a Complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. (Cuyahoga County Case No. CV-17-888950, Docket entry dated 11/13/17.) This Complaint (hereinafter “State Court Complaint”), including its attached exhibits, is identical to the Complaint filed in this Court, with the following additional paragraph:

Notwithstanding, purpose of ensuring due process, respect, fairness including the right hereto petition the Court hereby protect enforce and secure Law purposed violated and decide hereto compensation deemed appropriate. State having Jurisdiction of the matter more specifically equal rights, vigorous affected by the ramification of adverse employment. Plaintiff lack significant resulted thereby loss wages, Plaintiff request the Court to consider and decide equal protection herein pursuant rights hereto compensation.

(Id.) The State Court Complaint also adds one additional defendant, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (Id.)

         On December 7, 2017, Defendant MUY Hamburger Partners, LLC, (hereinafter “Defendant” or “MUY Hamburger”) filed this Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. No. 3.)[2] Anglen has not filed a response.[3]

         II. ...


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.