United States District Court, E.D. Missouri
JOHN L. BREEDLOVE, Plaintiff,
MEGAN J. BRENNAN, Postmaster General United States Postal Service, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (Doc. No. 6). Defendant
filed this Motion on October 17, 2017. Plaintiff John L.
Breedlove (“Breedlove”) did not file a response.
On November 6, 2017, this Court issued an Order giving
Breedlove until November 16, 2017 to file a response or the
Court would rule on Defendant's unopposed motion (Doc.
No. 7). To date, Breedlove has not responded. Therefore, the
Court rules on Defendant's unopposed Motion to Dismiss.
August 3, 2017, Breedlove, proceeding pro se, filed a
complaint in the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit of the City
of St. Louis against the United States Postal Service
alleging employment discrimination. (Complaint
(“Compl.”), Doc. No. 2.) Specifically, Breedlove
alleges he has worked for the Postal Service for over 33
years and never received a “competitive
promotion.” Breedlove also alleges that since he
started working for the Postal Service in 1984, he has been
“continually discriminated against and passed over for
promotions because of racism and discrimination, ” and
that his “case” was not properly investigated.
Defendant removed the case to this Court on August 31, 2017
(Doc. No. 1) and now moves to dismiss Breedlove's
complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
purpose of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of the
complaint. “To survive a motion to dismiss, 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) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Although pro se complaints are to be
construed liberally, “they still must allege sufficient
facts to support the claims advanced.” Stringer v.
St. James R-1 Sch. Dist., 446 F.3d 799, 802 (8th Cir.
2006) (quoting Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914
(8th Cir. 2004)). “[P]ro se litigants must set [a
claim] forth in a manner which, taking the pleaded facts as
true, states a claim as a matter of law.” Id.
(internal quotation omitted).
establish a prima facie case for race discrimination, a
plaintiff must show that: (1) he is a member of a protected
class; (2) he met his employer's legitimate expectations;
(3) he suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) the
circumstances give rise to an inference of discrimination.
Young v. Builders Steel Co., 754 F.3d 573, 577 (8th
Cir. 2014). Here, Breedlove alleges “racism and
discrimination, ” but fails to identify his protected
class. He alleges he has been discriminated against and
passed over for promotion during his 33 year career with the
Postal Service, yet fails to identify the alleged
discriminatory incidents or any factual allegations
supporting his claims.
before bringing a discrimination claim in federal court, an
employee must fully exhaust his administrative remedies. For
a federal employee, this requires, as an initial matter, that
he “initiate contact” with an Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) counselor “within 45 days of the date
of the matter alleged to be discriminatory” or of the
effective date of the alleged discriminatory personnel
action. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1); see also Burkett
v. Glickman, 327 F.3d 658, 660 (8th Cir. 2003). If the
matter cannot be resolved informally with the help of an EEO
counselor, the employee may file a formal EEO complaint with
the agency. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106.
Breedlove's complaint is devoid of any facts to suggest
he has exhausted administrative remedies and complied with
the deadlines for filing such claims.
after carefully reviewing Breedlove's pro se complaint,
the Court finds his factual allegations are insufficient and
conclusory; and the complaint does not provide the necessary
factual specificity to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss. The Court will, therefore, grant Defendant's
motion to dismiss.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss  is GRANTED. A separate
judgment of dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and
 The proper defendant in a
discrimination case brought by a U.S. Postal Service employee
is the Postmaster General. See 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-16(c), which states that the proper defendant in an
employment discrimination action brought by a federal
employee is “the head of the department, agency, or
unit.” The United States Postal Service as one such
“department, agency, or unit.” 42 U.S.C. §
2000e- 16(a). See Mathirampuzha v. Potter, 371
F.Supp.2d 159, 163 (D. Conn. 2005) (collecting cases). Thus,
Megan Brennan, in her ...