Robinson v. Universal Health Services Inc

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 Brittany Robinson, Case No. 2:19-cv-01530-RFB-BNW

7 Plaintiff, Screening Order 8 v.

9 Universal Health Services, Inc.,

10 Defendant.

11 12 Before the court is Plaintiff Brittany Robinson’s Amended Complaint. ECF No. 14. It 13 appears Plaintiff is attempting to bring a retaliation claim against Universal Health Services. She 14 alleges that she was harassed while working for Universal Health Services and brought this to the 15 attention of Human Resources on April 3, 2018. She explains that on that same date her position 16 was posted online and that she was eventually terminated on May 18, 2018. 17 I. ANALYSIS 18 A. Screening standard 19 In screening the complaint, a court must identify cognizable claims and dismiss claims 20 that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seek 21 monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 22 Dismissal for failure to state a claim under § 1915(e)(2) incorporates the standard for failure to 23 state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 24 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). 25 To survive § 1915 review, a complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 26 true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 27 678 (2009). The court liberally construes pro se complaints and may only dismiss them “if it 1 would entitle him to relief.” Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 908 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Iqbal, 2 556 U.S. at 678). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a claim, all 3 allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the 4 plaintiff. Wyler Summit P’ship v. Turner Broad. Sys. Inc., 135 F.3d 658, 661 (9th Cir. 1998) 5 (citation omitted). 6 Although the standard under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require detailed factual allegations, a 7 plaintiff must provide more than mere labels and conclusions. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 8 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action is 9 insufficient. Id. Unless it is clear the complaint’s deficiencies could not be cured through 10 amendment, a pro se plaintiff should be given leave to amend the complaint with notice regarding 11 the complaint’s deficiencies. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995). 12 B. Screening the complaint 13 Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against an employee because that 14 employee “has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, 15 or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an 16 investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–3(a). To make 17 out a prima facie case of retaliation, an employee must show that (1) he engaged in a protected 18 activity; (2) his employer subjected him to an adverse employment action; and (3) a causal link 19 exists between the protected activity and the adverse action. See Steiner v. Showboat Operating 20 Co., 25 F.3d 1459, 1464 (9th Cir.1994). 21 Here, Plaintiff sufficiently explains that she reported harassing conduct to Human 22 Resources on April 3, 2018, thus meeting the first element. She also claims she was terminated, 23 which meets the second element. Lastly, she explains that the same day she complained to Human 24 Resources her job was posted online and she was terminated a few weeks later. This also suffices 25 for purposes of the last element. 26 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may proceed with the single retaliation 27 claim against Universal Health Services set forth in her Amended Complaint (ECF No. 14). 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must send Plaintiff one blank copy 2 || of form USM-285. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have until August 20, 2021, to fill out 4 || and file the required USM-285 form. On the form, Plaintiff must fill in defendant’s last-known 5 || address so that the defendant may be served. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to issue summons to the 7 || defendant using the address Plaintiff provides on the filed USM-285 form. 8 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court serve a copy of this order, the 9 || issued summons, the filed USM-285 form, and the operative complaint (ECF No. 14) on the U.S. 10 || Marshals Service for purposes of effecting service. 11 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of this order, the summons, the USM- 12 || 285 form, and the operative complaint, the U.S. Marshal shall attempt service upon defendant 13 || pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 14 DATED: July 20, 2021. 15 LK pr la woke Brenda Weksler 16 United States Magistrate Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28