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.

Mayfield v. AT&T

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

March 19, 2018

MICHELLE MAYFIELD, Plaintiff,
v.
AT&T, et al, Defendants,

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant AT&T's Partial Motion to Dismiss, [Doc. No. 13]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.

         Facts and Background[1]

         Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination on August 25, 2015 with the EEOC. In her Charge, plaintiff checked the boxes for discrimination based on age and disability. Within the body of the charge, Plaintiff stated that she believed she was discriminated against due to her age (63), and because of her disability in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disability Act (ADA). She identified the earliest and latest dates that the discrimination took place as February 11, 2015.

         In her pro se Complaint, Plaintiff checked the boxes indicating that her action is based on Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and “Other-Retaliation by AT&T against me for use of FMLA and Short-Term Disability benefits and for filing 2 Work Comp Cases.” Plaintiff also checked the boxes indicating that she was discriminated against because of her race, color, gender, disability, age, and “other” for “filing 2 work comp cases for use of FMLA and short-term disability.” Plaintiff's Complaint also alleges that an AT&T employee terminated her for using FMLA and short-term disability for neck and hand surgeries. There are no allegations regarding any title VII protected classes, such as race, color, or gender.

         On February 3, 2017, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Right to Sue letter. The letter stated that the EEOC was unable to conclude that the information obtained established a violation of the statute and that no finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge. The letter goes on to state:

Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different).

         Plaintiff filed her motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this Court on May 1, 2017. Plaintiff was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis on May 2, 2017. In her Complaint, plaintiff marked that her lawsuit was based on Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the ADEA and retaliation. In response to the question in the Employment Discrimination Complaint form which asked her to explain why she believes she was terminated, plaintiff checked the boxes for: race, color, gender, disability, age, and other-belief that of which is retaliation.

         Defendant has moved pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to partially dismiss plaintiff's Complaint as untimely filed and because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies.

         Standard of Review

         To survive a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A pleading that merely pleads labels and conclusions or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, or naked assertions devoid of further factual enhancement will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly). Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 1950. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), the Court must accept plaintiff's factual allegations as true and grant all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005).

         Discussion

         Defendant states that any claims for discrimination under Title VII, the ADA,, or ADEA occurring prior to October 28, 2014-300 days prior to the filing of her Charge with the EEOC on August 24, 2015-are untimely and must be dismissed.

         Plaintiff did not initially respond to defendant's Motion to Dismiss. However, after the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, plaintiff filed a response to the Motion to Dismiss. In her response, with regard to the exhaustion arguments, plaintiff states that she did not intend to seek recovery for ...


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.