United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
LEONARDO A. BECTON, Plaintiff,
ST. LOUIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, filed on February 10, 2017. (ECF No. 9.) On March
24, 2017, the Court sua sponte granted Plaintiff an
additional 30 days to file a response to Defendant's
Motion. (ECF No. 16). To date, Plaintiff has not responded.
The Court will therefore rule on the Motion based upon the
record before it.
January 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed this pro se employment
discrimination action, asserting race discrimination claims
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title
VII”). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff, an African American,
alleges that he was employed as a continuing substitute
teacher by Defendant St. Louis Public Schools, and that he
was subjected to adverse employment actions when Defendant,
among other things, placed him on a performance improvement
plan and subsequently terminated his employment. Plaintiff
further alleges and that Defendant's discriminatory
conduct occurred from August 11, 2015 through November 14,
2015. Id. at 4-6. Plaintiff has attached to his
Complaint a copy of the charge of discrimination he filed
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”), which bears a signature date of October
5, 2016, and which is stamped “received” by the
EEOC on October 7, 2016. (ECF No. 1.3.)
mentioned above, Defendant now moves for dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant argues,
in part, that Plaintiff's claims must be dismissed
because Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust his administrative
notice pleading standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to give “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that [he] is entitled to
relief.” In ruling on a motion dismiss, the Court must
view the allegations in the complaint liberally in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. Eckert v. Titan Tire
Corp., 514 F.3d 801, 806 (8th Cir. 2008). To survive a
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint
must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
(internal quotations and citation omitted). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual
content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Id. (citation omitted).
“[D]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) serves to eliminate
actions which are fatally flawed in their legal premises and
designed to fail, thereby sparing litigants the burden of
unnecessary pretrial and trial activity.” Young v.
City of St. Charles, Mo., 244 F.3d 623, 627 (8th Cir.
2001) (citing Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,
argues that Plaintiff's claims are barred as a matter of
law because they were not filed within 180 or 300 days of the
alleged unlawful employment discrimination, and that the
Complaint must therefore be dismissed.
VII requires that before a plaintiff can bring suit in court
to allege unlawful discrimination, [he] must file a timely
charge with the EEOC or a state or local agency with
authority to seek relief.” Richter v. Advance Auto
Parts, Inc., 686 F.3d 847, 850 (8th Cir. 2012) (citing
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). “The charge must be
filed with the EEOC or other agency within 180 days
‘after the alleged unlawful employment practice
occurred, ' and give notice to the employer of the
circumstances of ‘the alleged unlawful employment
practice.'” Hutton v. Maynard, 812 F.3d
679, 683 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting § 2000e-5(e)(1)).
Where a plaintiff has initially instituted proceedings with a
state or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief
from such practice, the 180-day period for filing a charge
with the EEOC is extended to 300 days. See 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-5(e)(1); see also Nat'l R.R. Passenger
Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 109 (2002).
Plaintiff's EEOC charge indicates that November 14, 2015
was the latest date on which the alleged discrimination
occurred. Even assuming Plaintiff filed his EEOC charge on
October 5, 2016, the date on which he signed it, 326 days had
elapsed since the alleged unlawful employment practice took
place. Therefore, Plaintiff failed to timely exhaust his
administrative remedies with respect to his claims under
Title VII, and his Complaint must be dismissed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
(ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, and that Plaintiff's Complaint if
DISMISSED with prejudice. A separate Order ...