Ancar v. LCMC Health et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
KAWWANA L. ANCAR 	CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO: 25-618
LCMC HEALTH, TERRI JOSEPH, 	SECTION “H”
RHONDA BALLARD, AND
PETRINA SANDERS
ORDER AND REASONS
Before 	the 	Court 	is 	Defendants’ 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	Individual
Defendants Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by
Defendants 	Louisiana 	Children’s 	Medical 	Center 	d/b/a 	LCMC 	Health
(“LCMC”), Terri Joseph (“Joseph”), Rhonda Ballard (“Ballard”), and Petrina
Sanders 	(“Sanders”) 	(Doc. 	8). 	For 	the 	following 	reasons, 	the 	Motion 	is
GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
Pro se Plaintiff Kawwana Ancar filed this employment discrimination
action pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”).
Plaintiff alleges she was hired as a Clinical Documentation Integrity (“CDI”)
Specialist 	at 	LCMC, 	and 	while 	training 	for 	the 	role, 	she 	informed 	her
supervisor that she has a pituitary tumor that causes cognitive impairment
Case 2:25-cv-00618-JTM-EJD Document 13 Filed 11/14/25 Page 1 of 5

2
and brain fog. Plaintiff states that she informed her supervisors that, because
of her pituitary microadenoma, she would benefit from more interactive,
hands-on training. Plaintiff alleges she was not provided adequate training
that was supportive of her disability and that she was met with resistance and
conflicting instruction by her supervisors, Sanders 	and 	Ballard. 	Plaintiff
indicates that she then reported the issues to LCMC’s Human Resources
Department and requested one-on-one training but was terminated a few days
later. Plaintiff alleges that she contacted the Director of the Human Resources
Department, Joseph, to explain the circumstances surrounding her dismissal.
According to Plaintiff, Joseph contacted her months later to offer Plaintiff her
job 	back, 	but 	Plaintiff, 	feeling 	uncomfortable 	returning 	to 	the 	same
circumstances that predicated her termination, declined. Plaintiff filed this
action after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found there was
no cause for her termination.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against Joseph, Ballard,
and Sanders, alleging that she has failed to state a claim under the ADA.
Plaintiff has not filed any opposition.
LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
enough facts “to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.”1 A claim is
“plausible on its face” when the pleaded facts allow the court to “draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”2
1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 547 (2007)).
2 Id.
Case 2:25-cv-00618-JTM-EJD Document 13 Filed 11/14/25 Page 2 of 5

3
A court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and must “draw
all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor.”3 The court need not, however,
accept as true legal conclusions couched as factual allegations.4 To be legally
sufficient, a complaint must establish more than a “sheer possibility” that the
plaintiff’s claims are true.5 If it is apparent from the face of the complaint that
an insurmountable bar to relief exists and the plaintiff is not entitled to relief,
the 	court 	must 	dismiss 	the 	claim.6 The 	court’s 	review 	is 	limited 	to 	the
complaint and any documents attached to the motion to dismiss that are
central to the claim and referenced by the complaint.7
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Defendants 	argue 	that 	Plaintiff 	cannot 	assert 	ADA 	claims 	against
Joseph, Ballard, and Sanders because the ADA does not provide a cause of
action against individual employees of a plaintiff’s employer. The Court may
not 	simply 	grant 	the 	instant 	motion 	as 	unopposed. 	The 	Fifth 	Circuit
approaches 	the 	automatic 	grant 	of 	dispositive 	motions 	with 	considerable
aversion. As such, the Court will consider Defendants’ argument below.
“[I]ndividuals who do not meet the statutory definition of ‘employer’
cannot be held liable in their individual capacities under the employment
3 Lormand v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009).
4 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
5 Id.
6 Lormand, 565 F.3d at 255–57.
7 Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496, 498 (5th Cir. 2000).
Case 2:25-cv-00618-JTM-EJD Document 13 Filed 11/14/25 Page 3 of 5

4
provisions of the ADA.”8 “The ADA defines ‘employer’ as ‘a person engaged in
an industry affecting commerce who has 15 or more employees for each
working day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding
year, and any agent of such person.’”9 However, “the Fifth circuit does not
interpret the statute to impose individual liability on the agent,” namely “an
individual supervisor or fellow employee.”10 In the instant case, Plaintiff
alleges that Joseph is the Human Resources Director, Ballard is a CDI
Specialist – Director, and Sanders is a fellow CDI Specialist and Plaintiff’s
supervisor. The Court finds that Joseph, Ballard, and Sanders are individual
supervisors or fellow employees of Plaintiff. As such, none of these individual
Defendants meet the statutory definition for an “employer” under the ADA and
they cannot be liable under same. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim for which relief can be granted as to Defendants Joseph, Ballard, and
Sanders.
Having determined that the Complaint fails to state a claim, the Court
must consider whether to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims or allow her leave to amend
her Complaint. The Fifth Circuit has held that courts “may not dismiss a
complaint under [R]ule 12(b)(6) ‘unless it appears beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle
8 Starkman v. Evans, 18 F. Supp 630, 632 (E.D. La. 1998) aff’d, 198 F.3d 173 (5th Cir. 1999);
Kennermer v. Parker County, Texas, No. 21-10467, 2022 WL 2610239 at *2 (5th Cir. July
8, 2022) (“[T]he Americans with Disabilities Act does not permit individual liability.”).
9 Rogers v. Orleans Parish Sheriff Office, No. 22-5303, 2024 WL 1198425 at *3 (E.D. La. Mar.
20, 2024) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5)(A)).
10 Id. (citing Minnis v. Bd. of Sup’rs of La. State Univ. & Agric & Mech. Coll., 972 F. Supp. 2d
878, 888 (M.D. La. 2013)).
Case 2:25-cv-00618-JTM-EJD Document 13 Filed 11/14/25 Page 4 of 5

5
him to relief.’”11 Even liberally construing the factual allegations of this pro se
complaint, Plaintiff’s claims arise only under the ADA. Therefore, the Court
finds that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle her to relief from
Jospeh, Ballard, or Sanders. Accordingly, the Court finds that amendment
would be futile.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s
claims 	against 	Terri 	Joseph, 	Rhonda 	Ballard, 	and 	Petrina 	Sanders 	are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
New Orleans, Louisiana this 14th day of November, 2025.
____________________________________
JANE TRICHE MILAZZO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11 Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d 863, 873 (5th Cir. 2000).
Case 2:25-cv-00618-JTM-EJD Document 13 Filed 11/14/25 Page 5 of 5