Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Williams v. True Manufacturing

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

July 28, 2015

CHRISTOPHER DELANEY WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
v.
TRUE MANUFACTURING, Defendant.

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, [Doc. No. 23]. Plaintiff opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.

Plaintiff filed suit against his former employer alleging that he was discriminated against based on his sex by assigning the most physically and mentally challenging tasks exclusively to male employees. Plaintiff also claims discrimination based on sex with respect to promotions, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 213.010, et seq. Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's discrimination claims as they have not been administratively exhausted.

Facts and Background

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges the following:

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant for 17 years as a general laborer. He resigned as employee of Defendant on June 16, 2014. According to Plaintiff, Defendant would routinely assign the most physically and mentally demanding tasks to male employees. Defendant refused to promote Plaintiff despite his knowledge and would promote individuals less knowledgeable and often females. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and received a Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's treatment of him constituted unlawful employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (Count I) and Section 213.055 R.S.Mo. (Count II).

In its motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Defendant urges dismissal of Plaintiff's failure to promote and constructive discharge claims because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative aspects under both the MHRA and Title VII, by failing to include these claims in his charges of discrimination with the MCHR and EEOC.

With respect to his allegations in Counts II, Plaintiff argues that his complaint is adequate. Plaintiff does not respond to Defendant's arguments regarding Count I, Title VII, rather, he focuses solely on his Missouri MHRA claim

Discussion

Motion to Dismiss Standard

A motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), may challenge the plaintiff's complaint either on its face or on the factual truthfulness of its averments. See Titus v. Sullivan, 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir.1993); Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724, 729 n. 6 (8th Cir.1990). In a facial challenge to jurisdiction, the court affords the non-moving party the same protections that it would receive under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. See Osborn, 918 F.2d at 729 n. 6. In both types of motions, the court presumes that all of the factual allegations in the complaint are true and will not dismiss the claims unless the plaintiff fails to allege an essential element to establish subject matter jurisdiction or fails to state a claim for relief that is "plausible" on its face. See Titus, 4 F.3d at 593 (discussing 12(b)(1) standard); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (discussing 12(b)(6) standard).

When considering a motion regarding the sufficiency of the pleadings, such as this one, "the court generally must ignore materials outside the pleadings, but it may consider some materials that are part of the public record or do not contradict the complaint, as well as materials that are necessarily embraced by the pleadings." Faibisch v. Univ. of Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 802 (8th Cir.2002) (finding that motion for judgment on the pleadings was not converted to summary judgment by attachment of a copy of the EEOC charge, which was part of public record). As Plaintiff specifically referenced the written complaint of discrimination he filed with the MCHR and the EEOC in his compliant in this Court, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.