United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
Stephanie Dawkins Davis Mag. Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO
DISMISS  AND DECLINING TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL
E. LEVY United States District
an employment discrimination case. Pending is defendants'
motion to dismiss plaintiff's federal claims for failure
to state a claim, and request for the Court to decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction. (Dkt. 8.) For the reasons
set forth below, the motion is granted.
following facts are drawn from plaintiff's complaint, and
are treated as true for the purposes of this motion.
Cary Kieffer served in the United States military for twelve
years, from 1996 until 2008. On January 13, 2007, plaintiff
suffered injuries to his leg and eye during an ambush in
Mosul, Iraq.He was also diagnosed with Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) as a result of his
military service. Plaintiff's manifestation of PTSD
includes anxiety and panic attacks.
was hired to work for defendant Planet Fitness at their
Adrian, Michigan location on October 9, 2015. When plaintiff
was hired, he advised defendants, including Damian Berry, the
owner of the franchise, and Justin Bailey, the general
manager of the Adrian location, of his disabilities related
to his military service. He also informed them that he would
need to take pre-planned leave at certain times as a
reasonable accommodation to attend medical appointments in
Ann Arbor, Michigan, related to his disabilities.
December 2015, plaintiff was promoted to the position of
fitness instructor. In May 2016, plaintiff requested
permission to take short breaks of one to two minutes to deal
with anxiety attacks arising from his PTSD. Plaintiff does
not state whether this request was granted, or whether he
took any such breaks.
28, 2016, plaintiff requested unpaid leave from his job for
three medical appointments during the week of June 20, 2016.
The request was granted. In late June 2016, plaintiff was
given a raise. On July 5, 2016, plaintiff was terminated from
his job “for no reason whatsoever.” (Dkt. 1 at
6.) Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and
the Michigan Department of Civil Rights on August 11, 2016.
(Dkt. 1-2.) On February 1, 2017, the EEOC issued a Dismissal
and Notice of Rights, including a Right to Sue letter. (Dkt.
timely filed suit on April 25, 2017, asserting claims for
discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), failure to accommodate
and wrongful discharge under Michigan's Persons With
Disabilities Civil Rights Act (“PWDCRA”), and an
unspecified claim under the Uniform Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”).
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's federal
claims on June 21, 2017. (Dkt. 8.)
motion is fully briefed, and the Court determines that oral
argument is not necessary pursuant to E.D. Mich. Local R.
deciding a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the
Court must “construe the complaint in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff and accept all allegations as
true.” Keys v. Humana, Inc., 684 F.3d 605, 608
(6th Cir. 2012). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
(2009). A plausible claim need not contain “detailed
factual allegations, ” but it must contain more than
“labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
defendants' motion to dismiss is styled as one brought
under both Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim, it is only the latter. Defendants move to dismiss all
of plaintiff's federal claims, and state that the Court
must decline the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction over
the remaining state law claims. (Dkt. 8-1 at 9.) Defendants
have misread 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3), which states that
“district courts may decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over a claim [that is sufficiently
related to the claims over which the court has original
jurisdiction]. . . if . . . the district court has dismissed
all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.”
Section 1367(c) is permissive, not mandatory, and is not
properly the subject of a motion to dismiss for ...