Brodders v. Sodexo Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: August 22, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03537
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

6 IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Stacy L. Brodders, No. CV 24-03537-PHX-MTM 10 Plaintiff, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 Sodexo, Inc., et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 TO THE HONORABLE STEPHEN M. McNAMEE, SENIOR UNITED STATES 16 DISTRICT JUDGE: 17 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 9.) This 18 Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to General Order 21-25.1 Plaintiff filed his 19

20 1 General Order 21-25 states in relevant part: 21 When a United States Magistrate Judge to whom a civil action has been assigned pursuant to Local Rule 3.7(a)(1) considers dismissal to be 22 appropriate but lacks the jurisdiction to do so under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) due to incomplete status of election by the parties to consent or not consent 23 to the full authority of the Magistrate Judge, 24 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge will prepare a Report and Recommendation for the Chief United States District Judge or designee. 25 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED designating the following District Court Judges to review and, if deemed suitable, to sign the order of dismissal on 27 my behalf: 28 Phoenix/Prescott: Senior United States District Judge Stephen M. McNamee …. 1 original Complaint and Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis in December 2 2024. (Docs. 1, 2.) The Complaint was presented on the form provided by the District Court 3 for filing a civil case, and named seven Defendants who appeared to work in the restaurant 4 industry at Grand Canyon University. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff checked the boxes on the form 5 alleging claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Americans with 6 Disabilities Act. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged various forms of discriminatory conduct, including, 7 termination of employment, failure to accommodate, unequal terms and conditions of 8 employment, and retaliation. (Id.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendants discriminated against 9 him based on his race, color, national origin, and disability. (Id.) 10 Upon screening, the Court stated that “[d]espite checking the various boxes on the 11 form Complaint, Plaintiff fails to identify facts or connect any allegations to any Defendant, 12 or indicate how any of the Defendant’s actions give rise to civil liability.” (Doc. 8.) The 13 Court dismissed the Complaint, and gave Plaintiff 21 days to file an amended complaint. 14 (Id.) 15 Thereafter, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint on the form provided by the 16 District Court for filing a complaint, naming the same seven Defendants. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff 17 checked the boxes on the form alleging claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 18 and Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id.) He alleges various forms of discriminatory 19 conduct, including, termination of employment, failure to accommodate, unequal terms 20 and conditions of employment, and retaliation. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 21 discriminated against him based on his disability. (Id.) Although Plaintiff fails to provide 22 any facts in section provided on the form complaint, he attaches 20 pages of documents 23 stating that “all allegations can be proven through Veterans Administration, lawyers, and 24 Sodexo documentations, emails, and pay statements of misrepresentation of pay 25 discrepancies.” (Doc. 9-1.) 26 27 28 1 As this Court has previously advised, with respect to in forma pauperis proceedings, 2 the Court shall dismiss such action at any time if it determines that: 3 (A) the allegation of poverty is untrue; or 4 (B) the action or appeal – (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be 5 granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune 6 from such relief.

7 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126 n.7 (9th Cir. 2000) 8 (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “applies to all in forma pauperis complaints,” not merely those filed 9 by prisoners). The Court must therefore dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if it fails 10 to state a claim or if it is frivolous or malicious. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127 (“It is also clear 11 that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma 12 pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”). 13 Furthermore, Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a 14 complaint must include: (1) “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s 15 jurisdiction,” (2) “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is 16 entitled to relief,” and (3) “a demand for the relief sought.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The short 17 and plain statement for relief “need not contain detailed factual allegations; rather, it must 18 plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Clemens v. 19 DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. 20 Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 21 (“The plausibility standard . . . asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has 22 acted unlawfully”). 23 Rule 8 also “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed- 24 me accusation,” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, and “conclusory allegations of law and 25 unwarranted inferences are not sufficient,” Pareto v. F.D.I.C., 139 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 26 1998). Moreover, “[e]ach allegation must be simple, concise, and direct.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 8(d)(1). Where a complaint contains the factual elements of a cause, but those elements are 28 scattered throughout the complaint without any meaningful organization, the complaint 1 does not set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim” for purposes of Rule 8. Sparling 2 v. Hoffman Constr. Co., 864 F.2d 635, 640 (9th Cir. 1988). Thus, a complaint may be 3 dismissed where it lacks a cognizable legal theory, lacks sufficient facts to support a 4 cognizable legal claim, or contains allegations disclosing some absolute defense or bar to 5 recovery. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); 6 Weisbuch v. County of L.A., 119 F.3d 778, 783, n.1 (9th Cir. 1997). 7 The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to identify any facts or 8 connect any allegations to any Defendant, or indicate how any of the Defendant’s actions 9 give rise to civil liability. 10 The ADA provides that no employer “shall discriminate against a qualified 11 individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . . discharge of employees . . . and other 12 terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 12112(a). An employer 13 engages in unlawful discrimination under the ADA by “not making reasonable 14 accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified 15 individual with a disability[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A); see Snapp v. United Transp. 16 Union, 889 F.3d 1088, 1095 (9th Cir. 2018) (“The ADA treats the failure to provide a 17 reasonable accommodation as an act of discrimination if the employee is a qualified 18 individual[.]”). An employer has a duty to engage in an interactive process with a disabled 19 individual to identify reasonable accommodations, see Dunlap v. Liberty Nat. Prods., Inc., 20 878 F.3d 794, 799 (9th Cir. 2017), and the failure to do so constitutes unlawful 21 discrimination if a reasonable accommodation would have been possible, see Snapp, 889 22 F.3d at 1095. 23 To establish an ADA discrimination claim, a plaintiff must show that (1) she is 24 disabled; (2) she is a qualified individual, meaning she can perform the essential functions 25 of her job; and (3) the defendant failed to provide a requested reasonable accommodation, 26 failed to engage in an interactive process where a reasonable accommodation would have 27 been possible, or terminated the plaintiff because of her disability. See id.; Kennedy v. 28 Applause, Inc., 90 F.3d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1996); Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 1 F.3d 1351, 1353 (9th Cir. 1996); Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243, 1246 (9th 2 Cir. 1999). 3 Similarly, Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to 4 discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to 5 his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of such 6 individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). To 7 establish a prima facie case for Title VII discrimination, plaintiff must show: (1) he is a 8 member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse 9 employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were 10 treated more favorably. Fonseca v. Sysco Food Services of Arizona, Inc., 374 F.3d 840, 11 847 (9th Cir. 2004); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). 12 Once again, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint contains only checked boxes and brief, 13 incoherent statements, which are insufficient facts to support any legitimate claim against 14 Defendants. Accordingly, the Court will recommend that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint 15 be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Furthermore, the Court finds the deficiencies in 16 the Amended Complaint cannot be cured by amendment and will recommend that 17 Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. See Schucker v. 18 Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1203-04 (9th Cir. 1988) (“Dismissal of a pro se complaint 19 without leave to amend is proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the 20 complaint could not be cured by amendment.”); see also Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 21 1261 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming dismissal with prejudice where district court had instructed 22 pro se plaintiff regarding deficiencies in prior order dismissing claim with leave to amend); 23 Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The district 24 court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has 25 previously amended the complaint.”). 26 Accordingly, 27 IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Doc. 28 9) be dismissed without leave to amend. 1 This Report and Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to 2|| the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate || Procedure 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The 4|| parties have fourteen days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation to □□ file specific, written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. || 6(a), 6(b) and 72. Thereafter, the parties have fourteen days to respond to the objections. || Failure to timely object to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation may result 8 || in the District Court’s acceptance of the Report and Recommendation without further 9|| review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to 10 || timely object to any factual determinations of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a 11 || waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order of judgment 12 || entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 14 Dated this 22nd day of August, 2025. 15 16 Wr Aho Ve PMroreis □□ 7 United States Masistrate □□□□□□ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-6-