Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-08-CV-206.
August 12, 2009
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Good Shepherd Medical Center's ("Good Shepherd") Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dkt. No. 30). Defendant contends that the plaintiff failed to timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and has, therefore, failed to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing suit in this Court. After carefully considering the facts of the case and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS defendant's motion for the reasons stated in this opinion.
Also pending before the Court is a similar motion filed by defendant Jim Brandon (Dkt. No. 11). Plaintiff has amended her complaint to name Good Shepherd Medical Center Marshall as a defendant in place of Jim Brandon. (Dkt. No. 29). Therefore, defendant Jim Brandon's motion is DENIED as moot.
I. Factual Background
Plaintiff Annie Russell filed this case pro se against defendant Jim Brandon claiming sex/gender discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ( See Plaintiff's Original Complaint, Dkt. No. 2, at 1). The plaintiff has since obtained counsel and filed multiple amended complaints. (Dkt. Nos. 27, 29, 31). In her Third Amended Complaint, plaintiff identified the lone defendant in this matter as Good Shepherd and modified the caption of the case. (Dkt. No. 29). According to her Fourth Amended Complaint, plaintiff is an African American female, who was employed by the defendant as kitchen employee. (Dkt. No. 31). Plaintiff contends that she applied for a security officer position with the defendant, but was not allowed to interview based solely on her sex and gender. Id. Plaintiff alleges discrimination by the defendant in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff does not dispute that she has failed to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and obtain a notice of right to sue, allowing her to file suit against Good Shepherd.
II. Legal Standard
The legal standard for dismissing claims under FED. R. CIV. P. 12 ("Rule 12") is well established. Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). The Supreme Court has held that a complaint does not need detailed factual allegations to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, but the plaintiff's obligation to state the grounds of entitlement to relief requires "more than labels and conclusions." Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). The factual allegations must be sufficient to raise a "right to relief above the speculative level." Id. The Court must assume that the allegations in the complaint are true. See id; Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). "What Rule 12(b)(6) does not countenance are dismissals based on a judge's disbelief of a complaint's factual allegations." Id. at 328. The "issue is not whether [the plaintiffs] will ultimately prevail, but whether [they are] entitled to offer evidence to support [their] claim." Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 1999).
Employment discrimination plaintiffs must exhaust administrative remedies before pursuing claims in federal court. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Exhaustion occurs when the plaintiff files a timely charge with the EEOC and receives a statutory notice of right to sue. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378-79 (5th Cir. 2002). The scope of a Title VII complaint is limited to the scope of the EEOC investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC. Thomas v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice, 220 F.3d 389, 395 (5th Cir. 2000) (citing Young v. City of Houston, 906 F.2d 177, 179 (5th Cir. 1990)).
III. Discussion
IV. Conclusion.
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 Zipes, See id. Zipes, See Pinkard v. Pullman-Standard, 678 F.2d 1211 1217-19 See Harris v. Amoco Production Co.,768 F.2d 66968012
The Court is mindful of the fact that the plaintiff filed her suit in this court pro se. However, even after obtaining counsel, plaintiff made no attempt to cure her failure to initially satisfy the condition precedent. See, e.g., Bazile v. City of Houston, 2008 WL 4899635, at *5 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2008).