United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
OPINION AND ORDER
C. SMITH, JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendants J&D Home
Improvement, Inc. and Pat Clemens' Partial Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 14).
The motion is fully briefed and ripe for disposition. For the
following reasons, Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss
Christina Eddy and her husband, Phillip, both worked for
Defendant J&D Home Improvement d/b/a The Basement Doctor
(“J&D”). Plaintiff began working at J&D
on May 18, 2012, as a team lead. She then worked in the call
center as a manager and Philip worked as a laborer. Defendant
Pat Clemens was Plaintiff's supervisor. (Doc. 9, Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 20-23).
October 5, 2015, Philip injured his back at work. He filed a
worker's compensation claim with the Ohio Bureau of
Worker's Compensation and is still undergoing treatment
pursuant to that claim. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of
the back injury, her husband is disabled within the meaning
of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. at
February 2016, Sarah Witt, a Human Resources employee at
J&D, informed Plaintiff that she needed to switch her
insurance to reflect that Plaintiff was now responsible for
her husband's health insurance. (Id. at
¶¶ 30-31). Shortly after this change in insurance,
Plaintiff was demoted to a team lead position and her pay was
decreased from $19.19 per hour to $16.00 per hour.
(Id. at ¶¶ 32-33).
alleges that J&D wanted to fire her and began looking for
reasons to do so. (Id. at ¶¶ 35-42). On
April 29, 2016, Plaintiff was receiving all incoming calls
and she experienced technical difficulties with the phone
system. She asserts that J&D did this intentionally to
affect her performance and make it easier to terminate her.
(Id. at ¶¶ 39-42).
11, 2016, Philip's surgeon submitted a C-9 request for
medical service with the Bureau of Worker's Compensation.
The surgery was scheduled for July 1, 2016. On May 20, 2016,
Philip's surgery was approved by the Bureau of
Worker's Compensation. Plaintiff's employment with
J&D was terminated the same day. (Id. at
¶¶ 43-46). Plaintiff alleges that she was
“terminated in retaliation for her husband filing the
WC Claim, and/or for being associated with a disabled
person” and “because Defendants did not want to
cover her husband's approved surgery under the WC
Claim.” (Id. at ¶ 47-48).
December 18, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this case alleging
claims of disability discrimination in violation of both the
ADA and Ohio law and disability discrimination by
association, as well as claims for wrongful termination and
intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants
J&D and Pat Clemens have moved to dismiss Counts II, III,
IV and V for failure to state a claim.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
the Federal Rules, any pleading that states a claim for
relief must contain a “short and plain statement of the
claim” showing that the pleader is entitled to such
relief. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). To meet this standard, a party
must allege sufficient facts to state a claim that is
“plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A claim will be
considered “plausible on its face” when a
plaintiff sets forth “factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
12(b)(6) allows parties to challenge the sufficiency of a
complaint under the foregoing standards. In considering
whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted, the Court must “construe the complaint
in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, accept its
allegations as true, and draw all reasonable inferences in
favor of the plaintiff.” Ohio Police & Fire
Pension Fund v. Standard & Poor's Fin. Servs.
LLC, 700 F.3d 829, 835 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting
Directv, Inc. v. Treesh, 487 F.3d 471, 476 (6th Cir.
2007)). However, “the tenet that a court must accept a
complaint's allegations as true is inapplicable to
threadbare recitals of a cause of action's elements,
supported by mere conclusory statements.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663. Thus, while a court is to
afford plaintiff every inference, the pleading must still
contain facts sufficient to “provide a plausible basis
for the claims in the complaint”; a recitation of facts
intimating the “mere possibility of misconduct”
will not suffice. Flex Homes, Inc. v. Ritz-Craft Corp of
Mich., Inc., 491 Fed.Appx. 628, 632 (6th Cir. 2012);
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.