United States District Court, D. Nevada
C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the court is defendant Steven Grierson's
(“Grierson”) motion to dismiss plaintiff's
first complaint. (ECF No. 7). Plaintiff Jacquelynn Nickler
(“plaintiff”) filed a response. (ECF No. 10).
Grierson did not reply and the time to do so has passed.
before the court is defendants Clark County and Kathleen
Lambermont's (“Lambermont”) motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint. (ECF No. 18). Plaintiff
filed a response (ECF No. 24), to which Clark County and
Lambermont replied. (ECF No. 34).
before the court is Grierson's motion to dismiss
plaintiff's amended complaint. (ECF No. 19). Plaintiff
filed a response (ECF No. 25), to which Grierson replied.
(ECF No. 28).
a sexual discrimination and retaliation case brought under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), and various
state law claims. Plaintiff brings these claims against Clark
County, Grierson, and Lambermont (collectively
instant action stems from a statement plaintiff made in the
workplace. Plaintiff works as a district attorney team clerk
with the Clark County district attorney's
(“CCDA”) office. (ECF No. 9 at 3). In December
2012, plaintiff stated, “no wonder shit like Friday
happens.” Id. Plaintiff alleges she made the
statement in reference to a coworker leaving early on Friday,
December 14, 2012, due to an overwhelming workload caused by
a change in calendaring procedures. Id.
defendants construed the statement to be related to the Sandy
Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut, which had
also happened on Friday, December 14, 2012. (ECF No. 9 at 4).
Because of her statement, plaintiff was questioned about her
mental health and medications she may have been taking.
Id. Plaintiff was told she needed a
“filter.” Id. Defendants labeled
plaintiff as having low “emotional intelligence.”
was accordingly suspended from her job for several weeks
pending an investigation. Id. The investigation
included assessing various violence and gun-related cartoons,
photos, posters, and printed items that plaintiff had posted
in her work area. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Clark
County discriminated against her because it scrutinized the
gun references in her cubicle more severely than it
scrutinized her similarly situated male co-workers. (ECF No.
9 at 4).
plaintiff returned to her job, she was required to undergo a
mental “fitness for duty” examination by a
psychologist of defendants' choosing. Id. Until
she was cleared as “fit for duty, ”
plaintiff's employee identification badge was restricted.
Id. This meant plaintiff could only access her
workplace by going through the public entrance, including the
security screening that all non-employee members of the
public are subject to. Id. With plaintiff's
limited access, she could not enter the Regional Justice
Center (“RJC”) early and work overtime.
January 2013, the psychologist cleared plaintiff in the
fitness for duty exam. Id. Plaintiff shared limited
results of the exam with defendants but would not share the
detailed report. Id. Based on plaintiff's
failure to provide the report in its entirety, defendants
refused to restore plaintiff's badging privileges. (ECF
No. 9 at 5).
further alleges that Grierson, as the RJC court executive
officer, and Lambermont, as an administrator for the CCDA
office, provided false information to decision makers,
including the chief judge of the Eighth Judicial District
Court. (ECF No. 9 at 13). This led to plaintiff's badge
authorization being withheld for four years. Id.
According to plaintiff, Grierson and Lambermont knew that
plaintiff posed no threat; rather, they simply disliked
plaintiff and intended to prevent her from working overtime.
August 31, 2017, nearly five years after the incident,
plaintiff filed a formal charge of discrimination and
retaliation against the CCDA's office with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (ECF
No. 9 at 7). On September 12, 2017, plaintiff also filed a
formal charge of discrimination and retaliation against the
Clark County Court Administration office with the EEOC.
filed her amended complaint on November 15, 2018, bringing
the following causes of action: (1) sex discrimination or
retaliation in violation of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of
1964; (2) discrimination in violation of the ADA; (3)
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage
(“IIPEA”); and (4) civil conspiracy. (ECF No. 9).
may dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6). A properly pled complaint must provide “[a]
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007). While Rule 8 does not require detailed factual
allegations, it demands “more than labels and
conclusions” or a ...