From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hurley v. Advance Auto Parts

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Jan 20, 2010
Case No. 6:09-cv-1232-Orl-31GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2010)

Opinion

Case No. 6:09-cv-1232-Orl-31GJK.

January 20, 2010


ORDER


This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) filed by the Defendant, Advance Auto Parts ("Advance"). Advance claims that the Plaintiff, Daniel Hurley ("Hurley"), has failed to state a claim for age discrimination under Title VII. In his Amended Complaint (Doc. 29), Hurley contends that he was discriminated against because of his age, that he notified the Defendant of the problem by notifying his manager, and that the Defendant failed to remedy the problem, and that he was constructively terminated by the Defendant. In addition, Hurley attached to the Amended Complaint, a copy of his EEOC complaint, in which he states, inter alia, that he is 62. Based on the liberal pleading standards employed within this Circuit, these allegations are sufficient to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 31) is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Orlando, Florida.


Summaries of

Hurley v. Advance Auto Parts

United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division
Jan 20, 2010
Case No. 6:09-cv-1232-Orl-31GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2010)
Case details for

Hurley v. Advance Auto Parts

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL P. HURLEY, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division

Date published: Jan 20, 2010

Citations

Case No. 6:09-cv-1232-Orl-31GJK (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2010)