Opinion
4:21CV00667 JM
02-28-2022
SARAH HOLT PLAINTIFF v. ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DEFENDANT
ORDER
James M. Moody Jr. United States District Judge
Pending is the Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint. (Docket # 3). Plaintiff has filed a response and Defendant has filed a reply. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff, Sarah Holt, filed her Complaint on July 27, 2021 alleging that Defendant, Arkansas Department of Agriculture, violated her rights under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) by prohibiting her from applying for FMLA leave after she requested unpaid leave following an illness. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to state a claim because she failed to allege sufficient facts that would establish entitlement to leave under the FMLA. Specifically, Plaintiff was not entitled to FMLA leave because she did not have a “serious health condition.”
Standard of Review
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A claim is plausible on its face “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. However, courts are “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” and such “labels and conclusions” or “formulaic recitations] of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (quoting Bell Atl Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept as true all the factual allegations contained in the complaint and all reasonable inferences from the complaint must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Young v. City of St. Charles, Mo., 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir. 2001).
Discussion
Reviewing the Complaint in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff and drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs favor, the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a plausible FMLA claim. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that her need for FMLA leave was necessitated by health issues of her minor children. She claims her sick leave was depleted when her children were sick and required care and that she specifically notified the Defendant that she would be willing to take unpaid leave to care for her minor children during illnesses. Whether Plaintiff can prove that one of her children suffered from a serious health condition and that her absence was attributable to the child's serious health condition is more appropriately analyzed on summary judgment.
IT IS ORDERED.