Plaintiff Robert T. King sued defendants St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and Mayor Tishaura Jones in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri raising claims of disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act, retaliation, and violations of Missouri’s Whistleblower Protection Act. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
Factual Overview
Plaintiff Robert T. King was a Police Officer and Academy Instructor with the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department who suffered serious and debilitating injuries on the job in January 2018. King alleges that since his injury, he has been denied reasonable accommodations, benefits, and wages because of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He further claims he was retaliated against for attempting to enforce his rights under the ADA and brings additional claims under Missouri’s Whistleblower Protection Act. King seeks compensation for sick and vacation time that was allegedly taken from him, 130 days of salary continuation, reversal of his wrongful termination so he can retire with dignity and honors, and $200,000 in monetary damages.
The case was originally filed in state court but was removed to federal court by defendants based on federal question jurisdiction. King filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights on December 28, 2023, and received a Notice of Right to Sue on July 28, 2024. King is proceeding pro se without legal counsel.
Legal Analysis
Motion to Dismiss Arguments
Defendants raised five arguments in their motion to dismiss: that the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is not a suable entity; that plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim against Mayor Jones; that Mayor Jones is entitled to official immunity; that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Missouri Human Rights Act; and that claims against Mayor Jones should be dismissed because there is no individual liability under the ADA or Missouri Human Rights Act.
Court’s Approach to Pro Se Litigants
Rather than addressing the merits of defendants’ motion to dismiss, the court elected to take a more accommodating approach given that the plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the case was removed from state court to federal court. The court recognized that pro se plaintiffs often face challenges in navigating federal court procedures and pleading requirements that differ from state court practice.
Leave to Amend
The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. The court required that the amended complaint be submitted on a court-provided Employment Discrimination Complaint form and comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 10, and 11. The court provided detailed instructions requiring plaintiff to set out claims in a simple, concise, and direct manner, explain the factual basis for each claim, attach copies of discrimination charges and right-to-sue letters, and physically sign the complaint.
Procedural Requirements and Warnings
The court warned plaintiff that although he is representing himself pro se, he must still comply with all court orders, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rules. The court emphasized that failure to timely file the amended complaint by June 20, 2025, would result in dismissal of the action without prejudice and without further notice. The court also provided guidance on proper filing procedures, including requirements for captions, signatures, and contact information.
The court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint by June 20, 2025, in accordance with the court’s specific instructions.
Schrag on Law 