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.

Jones v. Summit County Job and Family Services

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

August 30, 2019

KEELY JONES Plaintiff,
v.
SUMMIT COUNTY JOB AND FAMILY SERVICES Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          JOHN R. ADAMS, JUDGE.

         Pro se Plaintiff Keely Jones brings this action against Defendant Summit County Job and Family Services alleging age discrimination in employment and retaliation. Doc. 1 (“Complaint”). Also before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, which is granted. Doc. 2.

         For the reasons that follow, this case is dismissed.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff's allegations are sparse. Her two claims are stated in their entirety as follows:

Claim 1 for age discrimination: Summit County Job & Family hired 23 year old with a BS in Political Science, 38 year old with BA in Accounting and and [sic] ¶ 44 year old with a Certificate in Eschology [sic] with 15 years of Case Management Specialist 2 experience. I was terminated May 17, 2013 and the Summit County Employees Handbook Policies and Procedures book does not deny me for reapplying or being rehire [sic]. Claim 2 for retaliation: I filed an age, race discrimination and unfair labor charge on June 12, 2013 and was dismiss [sic] December 12, 2013.

Complaint at 5.

         Attached to the Complaint is a charge Plaintiff filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on November 20, 2017, alleging that on November 9, 2017, she was not hired by Defendant as a Case Management Specialist II because of her age (58) and in retaliation for previously filing an EEOC charge of race and age discrimination and retaliation. Doc. 1-1 at 1. On August 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed another EEOC charge alleging that Defendant failed to hire her for a temporary Case Management Specialist 1 position because of her age and in retaliation for having filed the November 20, 2017 charge. Id. at 3. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on October 29, 2018. Id. at 2. The Court will consider the attachments to the Complaint in determining whether Plaintiff states a plausible claim for relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c).

         Plaintiff asks the Court “to restore to be hired with front and back pay.” Complaint at 6.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Standard of Review

         Pro se pleadings are liberally construed by the Court. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972) (pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers); Boag v. MacDougall, 454 U.S. 364, 365 (1982). Nevertheless, federal district courts are expressly required under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) to screen all in forma pauperis actions and to dismiss before service any such action that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

         The standard for dismissal articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) with respect to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) also governs dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B). Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). Therefore, in order to survive scrutiny under § 1915(e)(2)(B), a pro se complaint must set forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true and with all reasonable inferences drawn in plaintiff's favor, to state a plausible claim for relief. See Anson v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 529 Fed.Appx. 558, 559 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Section 1915(e)(2)(B) authorizes dismissal if the action fails to state a plausible claim for relief or is frivolous.”) (citations omitted).

         B. ...


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.