Opinion
Case No. 01-5094-CIV-GRAHAM
April 16, 2002
ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 3)
THE COURT has considered the notion, the pertinent portions of the record, a is otherwise duly advised in the premises.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, a former employee of Radioshack Corporation ("Radioshack"), asserts claims far race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count II), the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, Fla. Stat., § 760.10 (Count III).
The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff was employed as a store manages at Radioshack in South Florida since 1981, and remained in this position for nineteen (19) years. Plaintiff maintains that although he consistently received above average performance evaluations, and numerous management awards, he and other black managers began to experience intentional discriminatory treatment beginning in 1999, when a new District Manager was appointed for Radioshack's South Florida region.
Specifically, the Complaint appears to allege that Plaintiff was terminated on account of his race. It further alleges that Radioshack' s District Manager engaged in intentional discrimination, harassed and verbally abused black managers by making numerous racially offensive comments, conducted improper investigations of issues involving black employees and managers, intentionally issued poor ratings to stores managed by black employees, and terminated, demoted, and/or transferred black employees based on race.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
It is axiomatic that "a complaint shall not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts which will entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102 (1957). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, a federal court must view the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff and accept its allegations as true. See Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984); Beck v. Deloitte Touche, 144 F.3d 732 (11th Cir. 1998). Thus, in the context of a motion to dismiss, the issue is not whether plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but "whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974).
With regard to pleading defects, Rule 12(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that "[i]f a pleading to which a responsive pleading is permitted is so vague or ambiguous that a party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading, the party may move for a more definite statement before interposing a responsive pleading." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). In addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 provides that a well-pleaded complaint contains only one claim per count, and states in pertinent part that "[e]ach claim founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence . . . shall be stated in a separate count . . . whenever a separation facilitates the clear presentation of the matters set forth." Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b).
III. DISCUSSION
In Count I, Plaintiff alleges numerous violations of Title VII, including but not limited to a pattern of unlawful employment practices, hostile work environment, discharge based on race, disparate treat went of black employees, systemic disparate treatment based upon race, and failure to adequately supervise, control or discipline supervisors and agents.
In Count II, Plaintiff alleges numerous violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, including but not limited to unlawful employment practices, discrimination based on race, discrimination based on national origin, termination based on race, termination based on national origin, selective enforcement of company policy based upon race, selective enforcement of company policy based upon national origin.
Upon review of the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff is conflating numerous and disparate legal theories into single counts. If Plaintiff wishes to assert discrimination under various theories, Plaintiff must assert them as separate counts.
The same is true with respect to Plaintiff's factual allegations. Plaintiff has failed to allege which specific facts support each of the various theories of recovery. For instance, Plaintiff has sketched general factual allegations that black employees were unlawfully demoted, transferred or terminated by Radioshack's District Manager. Plaintiff then incorporates all of these factual allegations, wholesale, into every count of the Complaint, even though it appears from other allegations of the Complaint that Plaintiff himself may have been terminated, and perhaps not demoted and/or transferred. Such "shotgun pleading," coupled with counts containing numerous theories of recovery within each count, make it difficult, if not impossible, to discern what claims Plaintiff is attempting to state.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court concludes that the Complaint must be dismissed, with leave to refile an amended complaint that comports with this Order. Therefore, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Dismiss (D.E. 3) is GRANTED, an the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.