Opinion
Civil No. 01-1810 (MJD/JGL)
April 5, 2002
Plaintiff is pro se.
Joe R. Reeder and Geoffrey J. Greeves, Greenberg Traurig, LLP for and on behalf of Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, alleging claims of breach of contract, retaliatory and wrongful discharge, and discrimination in employment based on nationality, sex, job seniority and age. Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is granted.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that in 1995, she moved to Hungary to pursue employment. At that time, she held dual citizenship in Hungary and the United States. Plaintiff obtained employment with Fintage Magyar, Kft. as an account manager. Fintage Magyar is a corporation existing under the laws of the Republic of Hungary, and is in the business of purchasing and selling intellectual property rights in film. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mees Pierson International A.G. ("Mees Pierson") Szekeres Decl. ¶ 3. Mees Pierson is a subsidiary of Fortis B, a publicly traded foreign corporation. Greeves Decl. ¶ 2. When she began her employment, she signed an employment contract that was negotiated in the Republic of Hungary with Fintage Magyar. In 1998, she abandoned her Hungarian citizenship, and renegotiated her employment as an American expatriate in order to obtain an increase in pay. Szekeres Decl. ¶ 5. She executed a second employment contract with Fintage House, although she continued to provide services for Fintage Magyar. Id. ¶ 6.
Defendant Fortis, Inc. ("Fortis") is a Minnesota corporation that is engaged in the business of insurance. Like Mees Pierson, it is a subsidiary of Fortis B. Greeves Decl. ¶ 2. In her Complaint, Plaintiff does not allege that she was employed by Fortis. Instead, she alleges that Defendant is conducting business in the United States, with headquarters in Minnesota.
1. Breach of Contract
Plaintiff alleges that Fortis breached her employment contract. However, neither employment contract executed by Plaintiff imposes any contractual obligations upon Fortis, Inc. The first contract was between Plaintiff and Hungarian Intellectual Property Management, which later became Fintage Magyar. Exhibit 1 to Szekeres Decl. The second employment agreement is between Plaintiff and Mees Pierson. Exhibit 2 to Szekeres Decl. In addition, Plaintiff does not allege in her Complaint that she performed work for Fortis. Because she was not employed by Fortis, and because Fortis was not a signatory to the employment contracts at issue, the breach of contract claims fail to state a claim against Fortis.
2. Discrimination Claims
Plaintiff has also asserted claims of discrimination against Fortis. In order to bring a claim under Title VII, a plaintiff is required to exhaust her administrative remedies. Briley v. Carlin, 172 F.3d 567, 571 (8th Cir. 1999). "In order to exhaust administrative remedies, the claimant is required to demonstrate good faith participation in the administrative process, which includes making specific charges and providing information necessary to the investigation." Id. Plaintiff did not allege in her Complaint that she filed an administrative charge with the EEOC, and she has made no showing in response to Fortis' motion to dismiss that she filed an administrative charge with the EEOC.
Plaintiff did not file an opposition brief in response to Fortis' motion to dismiss, despite the Court's order dated February 22, 2002, that she file her brief in compliance with Local Rule 7.1(b)
The Court further finds that Plaintiff's claims under Title VII are time barred. An administrative charge must be filed within 180 days after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). Although Plaintiff's Complaint does not specify when the alleged unlawful employment practices occurred, the Court notes that Plaintiff had filed an action similar to this in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in October 2000.
In addition, Plaintiff filed an employment lawsuit in the Municipal Labour Court in Hungary on May 17, 2000, which involved the same allegations as have been made in this case. Accordingly, this Court can reasonably find that the unlawful practices at issue occurred prior to May 2000, rendering her claims time barred under Title VII.
In addition, the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA") defines employee as "an individual who is employed by an employer and who resides or works in this state." Minn. Stat. § 363.01. Because Plaintiff is not a resident of Minnesota, she cannot avail herself of the protections provided by the MHRA. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Fortis, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
.