Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00452/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-00452-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

ANDY LARD, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

v. )

 ) Civil Action No. 2:12cv452-WHA

ALABAMA BEVERAGE CONTROL )

BOARD (STATE OF ALABAMA), )

CHIEF JEFF ROGERS, in his individual ) (wo)

capacity, and STAN GOOLSBY in his )

individual capacity, )

 )

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

This cause is before the court on a Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeff Rogers (Doc.

#5), a Motion to Dismiss filed by Stan Goolsby (Doc. #8), and a Partial Motion to Dismiss filed

by the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (“the ABC Board”) (Doc. #11). 

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this case on May 24, 2012. In the Complaint he brings

claims of race discrimination and racial harassment under Title VII of the Civil Right Act of

1964 against the ABC Board (Count I), a retaliation claim under Title VII (Count II), race

discrimination and racial harassment claims under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. §

1981 against Jeff Rogers and Stan Goolsby (Count III), and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. §

1981 against Jeff Rogers and Stan Goolsby (Count IV).

The court has federal subject matter jurisdiction in this case. 

Defendant Jeff Rogers (“Rogers”) has moved to dismiss two counts of the Complaint,

Defendant Stan Goolsby (“Goolsby”) has moved to dismiss all claims asserted against him, and

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 8
the ABC Board has moved to dismiss two counts of the Complaint.

For the reasons to be discussed, Goolsby is due to be DISMISSED as a Defendant in this

case, Rogers’s Motion is due to be GRANTED, and the ABC Board’s Motion is due to be

GRANTED in part, but Lard will be given additional time to amend his Complaint, and to

address arguments raised by the ABC Board in its Reply brief in support of the Partial Motion to

Dismiss.

II. MOTION TO DISMISS 

The court accepts the plaintiff's factual allegations as true, Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), and construes the complaint in the plaintiff's favor, Duke v. Cleland, 5

F.3d 1399, 1402 (11th Cir. 1993). In analyzing the sufficiency of pleading, the court is guided

by a two-prong approach: one, the court is not bound to accept conclusory statements of the

elements of a cause of action and, two, where there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court

should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to entitlement

to relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). “[A] plaintiff's obligation to

provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions,

and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp.

v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Id. (citation omitted). To survive a motion to dismiss, a

complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” but instead the complaint must contain

“only enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. The factual

allegations “must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555. 

III. FACTS

The allegations of the Plaintiff’s Complaint are as follows:

2

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 2 of 8
The Plaintiff, Andy Lard (“Lard”), is an African American who had been employed by the

ABC Board. He began working for the ABC Board in August 1999 as an Agent I. After several

years of employment, Lard began working in the undercover drug unit. In 2004, he was

promoted to ABC Enforcement Agent II. In January 2006, he was promoted to ABC

Enforcement Lieutenant.

Lard alleges that Defendant Jeff Rogers and Vance Patton took over as his supervisors,

and at that point, he began to experience race discrimination. Lard states that no sergeant was

assigned to the district office to replace him when he became a lieutenant, which meant that he

was on call all of the time. He states that he asked Rogers to assign a sergeant to the district, but

the request was denied. Lard also states that his district was the last one to receive equipment

when equipment was provided to the districts. He finally states that his requests for necessary

items were routinely denied.

In late June 2010, Rogers ordered other ABC Board agents to place a GPS tracking

device on Lard’s car. Lard states that he was subjected to scrutiny not experienced by white

officers. On August 4, 2010, Vance Patton demanded that Lard resign for stealing time and

misusing a state vehicle. Lard alleges that when he refused to resign, he was falsely accused of

stealing money from the evidence locker. Rogers terminated Lard on August 30, 2010. Lard

states that white employees were not disciplined or terminated for criminal conduct. 

IV. DISCUSSION

At the outset, the court notes that in his combined response to the pending Motions and

Partial Motions to Dismiss, Lard has stated that he voluntarily dismisses Stan Goolsby as a

3

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 3 of 8
Defendant. (Doc. #18 at p. 2). Therefore, Goolsby’s Motion to Dismiss is due to be DENIED 1

as moot, and Goolsby will be DISMISSED as a Defendant in this case without prejudice. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B). The court, therefore, addresses below only the grounds for dismissal

raised by Rogers and the ABC Board.

A. Rogers’s Partial Motion to Dismiss

Rogers moves to dismiss claims against him in his individual capacity, and specifically

identifies Counts II and III in his motion. (Doc. #5). In his brief in support of his motion,

however, Rogers seeks dismissal of Counts II and IV. (Doc. #6 at p.6). In his Reply, Rogers

clarifies that the reference to Count III in the motion was an error. (Doc. #20 at p.3 n.4). 

As to Count II, Lard has stated that the Count is not asserted against Rogers. In his

Reply, Rogers points out that the Complaint refers to more than one Defendant within Count II,

and that the Title VII claim against the individual Defendant, Rogers, is improper and due to be

dismissed. To the extent that the Complaint has attempted to state a claim against the individual

Defendant, Rogers, for violation of Title VII, the Motion to Dismiss is due to be GRANTED.

See Busby v. City of Orlando, 931 F.2d 764, 772 (11th Cir. 1991).

Count IV is a claim of retaliation, asserted against the individual Defendant pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1981. A retaliation claim requires a showing (1) that the plaintiff engaged in

statutorily protected expression; (2) that he suffered a materially adverse action; and (3) that there

is a causal relation between the two events. McCann v. Tillman, 526 F.3d 1370, 1375 (11th Cir.

2008). The required relationship may be shown if the plaintiff shows the decision maker was

 No answer or motion for summary judgment having been filed by Goolsby, the Plaintiff 1

has a right to do this under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).

4

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 4 of 8
aware of the protected conduct, and if there was close temporal proximity between the awareness

and the adverse action. Farley v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 197 F.3d 1322, 1337 (11th Cir.

1999). 

Rogers has argued that Lard has not identified a protected activity, and has not alleged

knowledge of any protected activity by his employer, because Lard has not identified any type of

complaint of discrimination in his Complaint. Rogers points out that the Complaint only refers

to denials or requests for services, and then cites to several non-binding, but persuasive, cases for

the proposition that a plaintiff must do more than make a generalized complaint, but must show

that he complained of discrimination for there to be statutorily protected expression. See Demers

v. Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc., 321 F. App’x 847, 852 (11th Cir. 2009); Pate v.

Chilton County. Bd. of Educ., No. 2:09cv1172-WKW, 2012 WL 12872 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 4, 2012).

In Demers, an unpublished opinion, the Eleventh Circuit explained that a mere request for

maternity leave is not sufficient to constitute protected activity, because by itself it does “not

announce opposition to the discriminatory basis for its denial,” but an expression of resistance or

antagonism toward a discriminatory denial of that request could be sufficient. Demers, 321 F.

App’x at 852. Courts have also required plaintiffs to allege a complaint of discrimination to

withstand a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., Foster v. Humane Society of Rochester and Monroe

County, Inc., 724 F. Supp. 2d 382, 395 (W.D. N.Y. 2010) (granting a motion to dismiss as to a

retaliation claim, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to allege that she engaged in protected activity

because, while the allegations established that she did “complain about certain problems she was

having at work, she did not complain that she was being discriminated against on account of her

sex.”). 

5

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 5 of 8
Lard argues in his brief that he engaged in protected activity by being persistent in his

effort to obtain a new sergeant, and requesting equipment and office essentials which were

routinely provided to white lieutenants. In his brief, but not the Complaint, Lard states that his

requests for equipment and office essentials were made in objection to the denial of access to

resources given to white lieutenants. (Doc. #18 at p.14). The Complaint, however, merely

states that Lard requested a sergeant, that “[w]hen the Department provided new equipment to

the districts, Lard’s district was the last one to receive it,” and that his requests for necessary

items were routinely denied. (Doc. #1 at ¶¶ 23, 25, 26).

The allegations of the Complaint do not state a claim for retaliation against Rogers,

because they do not identify any complaint of discrimination made known to Rogers. Given the

characterization of Lard’s requests for supplies and equipment made in his brief, however, the

court will give Lard an opportunity to amend his Complaint, if he can do so within the

requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to plead facts which show that

his requests were made in the form of an objection made known to Rogers about a discriminatory

denial of resources.

B. ABC Board’s Motion to Dismiss

The ABC Board moves to dismiss the hostile work environment claim included within

Count I and the Title VII retaliation claim in Count II of the Complaint. For the reasons

discussed above in connection with the retaliation claim asserted against Rogers, the retaliation

claim in Count II against the ABC Board is due to be dismissed. The court will give Lard an

opportunity to amend his Complaint, if he can do so within the limitations of Rule 11 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to plead facts which show that his requests were made in the

6

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 6 of 8
form of an objection made known to his employer about a discriminatory denial of resources.

As to the claim for hostile work environment in Count I, the ABC Board initially moved

for dismissal on the ground that Lard’s cited incidents of harassment are workplace disputes and

do not constitute severe or pervasive conduct. In its reply brief, the ABC Board has refined this

argument to state that the discrete acts of discrimination identified as a basis for disparate

treatment claims in Count I of the Complaint should not be considered by the court in evaluating

the sufficiency of the hostile environment claim also contained within Count I. The ABC Board

also argues that the allegations of the Complaint are not as extensive as those made in another

case pending in this court against the ABC Board. Because Lard has not had the opportunity to

respond to these arguments, the court will allow Lard additional time in which to file a brief in

response. So as not to unduly delay the proceedings, however, and because the court is already

allowing Lard time in which to amend his Complaint, if Lard feels that additional factual

allegations regarding his hostile environment claim are necessary in light of the ABC Board’s

arguments, the court will also allow Lard to include additional facts relating to the hostile

environment claim in an Amended Complaint. The court will rule on the Motion to Dismiss as

to the hostile environment claim in Count I at that time.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. Stan Goolsby having been voluntarily dismissed by the Plaintiff, Stan Goolsby is

DISMISSED without prejudice as a Defendant in this case, and his name shall be removed from

the caption. The Motion to Dismiss filed by Stan Goolsby (Doc. #8) is DENIED as moot.

2. The Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by Jeff Rogers (Doc. #5) is GRANTED to the

7

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 7 of 8
extent that any claim in Count II asserted against Rogers is DISMISSED with prejudice as to

Rogers, and Count IV is dismissed without prejudice as to Rogers.

3. The Partial Motion to Dismiss filed by the Alabama Beverage Control Board (“ABC

Board”) (Doc. #11) is GRANTED as to Count IV, and Count IV is dismissed without prejudice

as to the ABC Board.

4. The portion of the Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) which is directed to the

hostile environment claim in Count I is held in abeyance. 

5. Lard is given until August 22, 2012 to file an Amended Complaint, complete unto

itself within the requirements of M.D. Ala. Local Rule 15.1, as follows:

a. retaliation claims against Rogers and the ABC Board in Counts II and IV–the

Amended Complaint must state sufficient facts to demonstrate that a complaint of discrimination

was made known to Rogers and the ABC Board, as discussed above, if Lard can do so within the

requirements of Rule 11 of the Rules of Civil Procedures.

b. hostile environment claim in Count I–the Amended Complaint may also include

additional facts regarding Lard’s hostile environment claim, should Lard feel that additional facts

are needed and can be included consistent with Rule 11.

6. Lard is given until August 22, 2012 to file an additional response to the ABC Board’s

arguments regarding the sufficiency of his hostile environment allegations. The remaining

portion of the Partial Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #11) will be taken under submission at that time.

 Done this 10th day of August, 2012.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton 

W. HAROLD ALBRITTON

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8

Case 2:12-cv-00452-WHA-CSC Document 23 Filed 08/10/12 Page 8 of 8