Filed: May 28, 2014
Latest Update: May 28, 2014
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 27). The motion is denied in part, and found to be moot in part. The parties' stipulation of dismissal of Counts I, II, and III of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) leaves Plaintiff's retaliation claim as the only issue remaining to be addressed with regards to the motion for partial dismissal. Seeing that Plaintiff has amended his Complaint, Defendant's first Mot
Summary: ORDER HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 27). The motion is denied in part, and found to be moot in part. The parties' stipulation of dismissal of Counts I, II, and III of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) leaves Plaintiff's retaliation claim as the only issue remaining to be addressed with regards to the motion for partial dismissal. Seeing that Plaintiff has amended his Complaint, Defendant's first Moti..
More
ORDER
HUGH LAWSON, Senior District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Partial Dismissal of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 27). The motion is denied in part, and found to be moot in part. The parties' stipulation of dismissal of Counts I, II, and III of the Amended Complaint (Doc. 33) leaves Plaintiff's retaliation claim as the only issue remaining to be addressed with regards to the motion for partial dismissal. Seeing that Plaintiff has amended his Complaint, Defendant's first Motion for Partial Dismissal (Doc. 6) relating to the original Complaint is also moot.
Although Plaintiff failed to respond to the motion to dismiss the retaliation claim within the time set by the Local Rules,1 it is nevertheless denied. Plaintiff's allegation that Defendant retaliated against him for complaining about violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), meets the pleading standard set by federal law. Accepting the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true, see Oxford Asset Mgmt., Ltd. v. Jaharis, 297 F.3d 1182, 1188 (11th Cir. 2002), the facts show that Mike, Plaintiff's supervisor, required Plaintiff to drive him to and from work without compensation. When Plaintiff complained about being forced to do this without pay, Mike warned him he would be fired if he stopped providing transportation. After an angry confrontation with Mike when Plaintiff said he would never be disrespected by his supervisor again, Mike terminated Plaintiff's employment and was joined in that decision by other employees for Defendant who knew of Plaintiff's complaints about having to transport Mike. (Amended Complaint, Doc. 26, ¶¶6-12). The retaliation claim is plausible because it allows the Court to draw the reasonable inference that Defendant fired Plaintiff because he complained of FLSA violations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). Therefore, the motion to dismiss the retaliation claim relating to the alleged FLSA violations is denied.
In light of the foregoing, the stay of discovery is now lifted. The parties are ordered to hold a Rule 16 scheduling conference not later than June 10, 2014, and to file a proposed scheduling order not later than June 17, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
