Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Miller v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. New York

October 30, 2017

TIMOTHY L. MILLER, Plaintiff,
v.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.. Defendant.

          For Plaintiff: Timothy L. Miller, pro se

          For Defendant: Alvaro Hasani, Esq. David Edward Strand, Esq. Kathleen McLeol Caminiti, Esq. Fisher & Phillips LLP

          DECISION AND ORDER

          CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA, United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         Timothy L. Miller (“Plaintiff”) was employed by Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (“Kohl's”) until he resigned. Following an investigation and adjudication by the New York State Division of Human Rights, Plaintiff commenced this action which appears to the Court to be a claim under Title VII, alleging that sexual harassment and retaliation while employed at Kohl's. Compl., Feb. 6, 2017, ECF No. 1. Now before the Court is Kohl's motion for dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Notice of Motion, Mar. 2, 2017, ECF No. 5. The application is granted and this action is dismissed.

         BACKGROUND

         In a rambling, stream-of-consciousness complaint, Plaintiff alleges that while employed as a seasonal worker at Kohl's, he experienced “sexual harassment from all ages.” Compl. at 1. He also alleges that,

[w]hat seriously upset me was when I witness [sic] the parents coaching their kids to act nude towards. [sic] One of my employees [sic] Manager Jessica I needed assistance at the kiosk with a married couple between July and August I witness she [sic] asking a customer was I looking at their kids while the same customer kept following me and I watch coach [sic] his kid. On several occasions I experience [sic] parents telling their kids to feel on me or run up to me in [sic] grab my by my legs. This happen [sic] between may in [sic] August. While the customer was standing watching his son grabbing me by my legs as if the young boy new [sic] who I were [sic] I over heard the customer tell his son did you feel anything hard. This happen 2016 [sic] around 3 [sic] before I quit. Since I left kohls [sic] I experience harassment beyond my control. While entering stores like mcdonalds [sic], Family dollar [sic] on Monroe avenue [sic], Downtown, even coming from city hall as I try to talk to the mayor I witness sexual harassment. Before I contact [sic] Monroe division of human rights and the eeoc [sic] I try to resolve these problems by calling local police department in trying to resolve my problems with the mayor who is a relative. The mayor never responded. The mayor is just a mayor in im [sic] quite sure its [sic] not her position that why they have police etc. But imagine you being harass [sic] in your town in you go to the mayor who is a relative. Meaning to tell me this woman who dill [sic] with kids never consider that the above accusation happen [sic] in international business for which the mayor could have contact authorities or the business. I told her I were [sic] being discriminated [sic], harass [sic], sexually harassed. I believe she could have spoken to someone to resolve these false accusations. The mayor never respond in the rumor is that she put me on an illegal investigation. I overheard Orville Dixon stating while shopping at Kohls that lovely[1] have me under investigation. Far as Jermy eeoc investigating didn't investigate anything.

Compl. at 1-2. The Complaint continues in a similar fashion for another page and includes attachments of documents showing the administrative complaint and results of the investigation.

         STANDARD OF LAW

         Motion to Dismiss

         Defendant has moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The standard for the motion is clear:

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires only a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, in order to give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it rests. While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 1964-65, 167 L.Ed. 2D 929 (2007); see also, ATSI Communications, Inc. v. Shaar Fund, Ltd., 493 F.3d 87, 98 (2d Cir. 2007) (“To survive dismissal, the plaintiff must provide the grounds upon which his claim rests through factual allegations sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.'”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly) (footnote omitted). When applying this standard, a district court must accept the allegations contained in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.