Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Citation. Unpublished Opinion. Docket No. 96-00029-CV-1 (SD Ga. 1996).
Plaintiff sued his employer, Defendant, for allegedly firing him in an attempt to deter his participation as a witness in a Federal trial.
A court should dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
Plaintiff was an at-will employee of Defendant Healthmaster Home Health Care, Inc. He sued Defendants, claiming that he was wrongfully terminated to discourage his participation as a witness in a criminal trial. He brought the suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Is it proper to dismiss a claim by an at-will employee brought under a statute requiring actual injury to the employee for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted?
Yes.
Under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6), a defendant may move to dismiss a complaint if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A court should dismiss a claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if the plaintiff cannot prove a set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief. Additionally, when determining the merits of a 12(b)(6) motion, a court must assume that all of the factual allegations of the complaint are true. Here, Haddle brought his suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2), which affords relief only to a party who has suffered actual injury. Under binding precedent in Morast v. Lance, 807 F.2d 926 (1987), an at-will employee who had been terminated suffered no actual injury. Therefore, even if the court assumed everything Haddle said was true, his admission that he was an at-will employee rendered him without legal recourse. Thus, the court granted Defendant‘s motion to dismiss is upheld for failure to state a claim upon which relief.