Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-09-1663.
July 29, 2009
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") [Doc. # 4] filed by Defendant Sherlocks USA, Inc. ("Sherlocks"), to which Plaintiff Colin A. Chapman filed a Response [Doc. # 9]. Sherlocks neither filed a reply nor requested additional time to do so. Having reviewed the record and the relevant legal authorities, the Court denies Sherlocks's Motion.
Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Sherlocks and Hospitality USA Investment Group, Inc. ("Hospitality") alleging sexual harassment and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Sherlocks has filed its Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff did not name Sherlocks in the Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and, therefore, cannot maintain this lawsuit against Sherlocks.
In the EEOC Charge, Plaintiff named "Sherlock's Baker Street Pub Grill" as his employer. See Charge of Discrimination, Exh. A-1 to Motion, p. 2. The EEOC sent a Notice of Charge of Discrimination to "Hospitality USA." See Notice of Charge of Discrimination, Exh. A-1 to Motion, p. 1.
Generally, a court may not entertain a Title VII action against a party not named in the EEOC charge. Crawford v. Western Elec. Co., Inc., 614 F.2d 1300, 1306 (5th Cir. 1980). Suits are allowed, however, against parties who were not correctly named in the EEOC charge where the incorrectly named party had notice of the EEOC charge and had an opportunity to participate in conciliation efforts. See, e.g., Marks v. Prattco, Inc., 607 F.2d 1153, 1157 (5th Cir. 1979); Matthews v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 595 F. Supp. 445, 447 (S.D. Tex. 1984). Plaintiff identified "Sherlock's Baker Street Pub Grill" as the name of his employer. It is Plaintiff's understanding that Sherlocks has an interest in "Sherlock's Baker Street Pub Grill." It is also Plaintiff's understanding that the same individuals who are officers of Sherlocks are officers of Hospitality. See Results of Business Organizations Inquiry, Exh. A to Response. It is undisputed that Hospitality received notice of Plaintiff's EEOC charge.
Sherlocks has not shown that its name is materially different from the name of the employer identified in the EEOC charge, and has not shown that it did not have notice of Plaintiff's EEOC charge and an opportunity to participate in any conciliation efforts. As a result, it is hereby
ORDERED that Sherlocks's Motion to Dismiss [Doc. # 4] is DENIED.