From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Douglas v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 31, 2005
Civil Action No. 04-618 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-618.

March 31, 2005


MEMORANDUM/ORDER


Before this court is National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)s Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. For the reasons stated below, the motion will be granted.

Background

On August 11, 2004, plaintiff Terry Douglas filed a complaint against Amtrak alleging claims under the Railroad Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 153 et. seq. (RLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et. seq. (ADA).

Douglas was employed by Amtrak as a BB Mechanic Foreman when he sought mental health counseling and was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He was taken off the job and given medication and counseling. Douglas was cleared to return to work on April 22, 1999. However, the complaint alleges that a supervisor refused to provide Douglas with a Med One Form to allow the Amtrak doctor to examine him and perform a back to work physical. It was not until May 18, 2000 that Douglas was given the necessary physical. He returned to work on May 26, 2000. He is seeking $46,800.00 in lost wages and attorney's fees.

On September 22, 2004, Amtrak's filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Despite being properly served, Douglas never responded. Nonetheless, the court will now consider the motion on its merits.

Discussion

A. ADA Claim

Prior to filing an ADA claim in federal court, a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5; Churchill v. Star Enterprises, 183 F.3d 184, 190 (3d. Cir. 1999). This is the same exhaustion procedure required by plaintiffs asserting employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

42 U.S.C. § 12117 states:

The powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in sections 2000e-4, 2000e-5, 2000e-6, 2000e-8, and 2000e-9 of this title shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this subchapter provides to the Commission, to the Attorney General, or to any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of any provision of this chapter, or regulations promulgated under section 12116 of this title, concerning employment.

The Supreme Court has held that the filing of a timely EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to filing a Title VII suit, but a requirement subject to waver as well as tolling when equity so requires. Zipes v. Trans World Airways, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393 (1982). Therefore, a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust an employment discrimination claim should be treated under Rule 12(b)(6). Robinson v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 1018, 1022 (3d. Cir. 1997)

Douglas does not allege that he filed a claim with the EEOC. Having not responded to the motion to dismiss, he has not presented any ground for waiver or equitable tolling. Accordingly, the ADA claim should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under Rule 12(b)(6).

B. RLA Claim

The RLA establishes a comprehensive framework for the resolution of resolving both major and minor labor disputes in the rail industry. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Buell, 480 U.S. 557, 562 (1987). Minor disputes are those growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions. Id. Minor disputes must initially be dealt with through a railroad's internal dispute resolution processes, and if not settled there, may be submitted to a division of the [National Railroad] Adjustment Board. Atchinson, 480 U.S. at 563. Unless one of four exceptions apply, [j]urisidiction to entertain the merits of a minor dispute rests exclusively with the arbitral forum. Independent Assoc. of Continental Pilots v. Continental Airlines, 155 F.3d 685, 691 (3d. Cir. 1998). Those four exceptions include (1) when the employer repudiates the private grievance machinery; (2) when resort to administrative remedies would be futile; and (3) when the employer is joined in a [duty of fair representation] claim against the union . . . and (4) where a breach of the [duty of fair representation] by the union causes the employee to lose his right to press his grievance before the Board. Childs v. Pennsylvania Federation Broth. of Maintenance Way Employees, 831 F.2d 429, 437-39 (3d. Cir. 1987).

The complaint is sparse. To the extent that in addition to the disability discrimination claim addressed above Douglas is asserting a separate RLA claim alleging that Amtrak failed to comply with the rules governing his return to work following a medical leave of absence, that claim would qualify as a minor dispute. Furthermore, the complaint does not allege any facts to support a finding that Douglas is entitled to one of the exceptions articulated in Childs. Therefore, this court must dismiss the RLA claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint (# 11) is hereby GRANTED.


Summaries of

Douglas v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Mar 31, 2005
Civil Action No. 04-618 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2005)
Case details for

Douglas v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Case Details

Full title:TERRY DOUGLAS Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, t/a…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 31, 2005

Citations

Civil Action No. 04-618 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2005)