Source: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180723_0002364.MFL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:25:24+00:00

Document:
DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Defendant.
JOHN E. STEELE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This matter comes before the Court on review of defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. #8) filed on October 6, 2017. Plaintiff filed a Response (Doc. #16) on November 16, 2017. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff Barbara Goldsworthy (Plaintiff) filed a five-count Complaint (Doc. #1) against the District School Board of Collier County, Florida (Defendant) for intentional infliction of emotional distress (Count I), negligent infliction of emotional distress (Count II), violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., (Count III), retaliation in violation of the ADEA (Count IV), and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 (Count V).
Defendant now moves to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. As to Plaintiff's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Defendant argues it should be dismissed because (1) it is time-barred; and (2) Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous. Defendant argues the negligent infliction of emotional distress claim should be dismissed because (1) it is time-barred; (2) Defendant is immune under Florida's Workers' Compensation Law; and (3) it is barred by Florida's impact rule. Defendant contends that Plaintiff's age discrimination claim should be dismissed because Plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case under the ADEA. Lastly, Defendant argues Plaintiff's retaliation claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not alleged a causal link between Plaintiff's filing of her EEOC claim and her DROP extension being denied.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(6) motion seeking to dismiss a complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8(a), the Court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and “construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” Baloco ex rel. Tapia v. Drummond Co., 640 F.3d 1338, 1345 (11th Cir. 2011). However, mere “[l]egal conclusions without adequate factual support are entitled to no assumption of truth.” Mamani v. Berzain, 654 F.3d 1148, 1153 (11th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). To avoid dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), the complaint must contain sufficient factual allegations to “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). To do so requires “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. This plausibility pleading obligation demands “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555 (citation omitted); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”); Chaparro v. Carnival Corp., 693 F.3d 1333, 1337 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Factual allegations that are merely consistent with a defendant's liability fall short of being facially plausible.” (citation omitted)). Thus, the Court engages in a two-step approach: “When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679.
Count I asserts a claim against Defendant for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Specifically, it alleges that Defendant intentionally assigned Plaintiff to a dangerous MC1 classroom, despite being aware of her frail condition. Defendant argues Count I should be dismissed because (1) Plaintiff's claim is time-barred; and (2) the Complaint fails to adequately allege that Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous.

References: § 621
 § 12203
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.