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.

Nickler v. Clark County

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 15, 2019

JACQUELYNN NICKLER, Plaintiff,
v.
CLARK COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          JAMES C. MAHAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Presently 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.

         Also 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).

         Also 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).

         I. Facts

         This is 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 “defendants”).

         The 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.

         However, 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.” Id.

         Plaintiff 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).

         When 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. Id.

         In 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).

         Plaintiff 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. Id.

         On 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. Id.

         Plaintiff 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).

         II. Legal Standard

         A court 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 ...


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.