From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rowe v. Maricopa County Library District

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jun 10, 2011
No. CV-11-0157-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Jun. 10, 2011)

Opinion

No. CV-11-0157-PHX-FJM.

June 10, 2011


ORDER


The court has before it defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 8). Plaintiff did not respond to the motion and the time for doing so has expired. See LRCiv 7.2(c).

Plaintiff filed this pro se complaint asserting that she was discharged from her employment with the Maricopa County Library District while she was on medical leave. While the complaint does not identify the legal basis for her claim, it does reference the charge of discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), which asserted a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). See Response, ex. A.

Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, for failing to assert the basis for this court's jurisdiction, and for failing to file a timely charge with the EEOC. We agree that plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy the pleading standards set forth in Rule 8(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., and dismiss the complaint on this basis. We also agree that her failure to file a timely administrative charge of discrimination bars this action.

Plaintiff alleges that she was terminated from employment on September 2, 2009. She filed a charge of discrimination with the Civil Rights Division of the Arizona Attorney General's Office and the EEOC on October 28, 2010, 421 days after her discharge, asserting a claim under the ADA. Motion, ex. A. The timely filing of a charge with the EEOC or state agency is a prerequisite to asserting a claim under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Plaintiff was required to file her charge of discrimination within 300 days of the challenged employment practice-in this case, her termination. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Because plaintiff did not file her claim within 300 days of her discharge, her claim is time-barred. National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 2070 (2002).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED GRANTING defendant's motion to dismiss (doc. 8). The clerk shall enter final judgment.

We urge plaintiff to seek the advice of counsel. If she does not have a lawyer, she may wish to call the Lawyer Referral Service of the Maricopa Bar Association at 602-257-4434.


Summaries of

Rowe v. Maricopa County Library District

United States District Court, D. Arizona
Jun 10, 2011
No. CV-11-0157-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Jun. 10, 2011)
Case details for

Rowe v. Maricopa County Library District

Case Details

Full title:Anne Rowe, Plaintiff, v. Maricopa County Library District, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: Jun 10, 2011

Citations

No. CV-11-0157-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. Jun. 10, 2011)