United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
C. HAMILTON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on review of the amended
complaint. The Court finds that plaintiff's claims for
religious discrimination, as well as discrimination based on
gender and color, are subject to dismissal, as these claims
are not like or reasonably related to the claims outlined in
plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination filed with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court will also
dismiss plaintiff's claim for retaliation under Title VII
as these claims were also not included in plaintiff's
Charge of Discrimination.
Standard on Initial Review
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court is required to dismiss
a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous,
malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a
plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief,
which is more than a “mere possibility of
misconduct.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,
679 (2009). “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. at 678.
Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for
relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing
court to draw upon judicial experience and common sense.
Id. at 679. The court must “accept as true the
facts alleged, but not legal conclusions or threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements.” Barton v. Taber,
820 F.3d 958, 964 (8th Cir. 2016). See also
Brown v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 820 F.3d 371, 372-73
(8th Cir. 2016) (stating that court must accept
factual allegations in complaint as true, but is not required
to “accept as true any legal conclusion couched as a
reviewing a pro se complaint under § 1915(e)(2), the
Court must give it the benefit of a liberal construction.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A
“liberal construction” means that if the essence
of an allegation is discernible, the district court should
construe the plaintiff's complaint in a way that permits
his or her claim to be considered within the proper legal
framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777, 787
(8th Cir. 2015). However, even pro se complaints
are required to allege facts which, if true, state a claim
for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon,
623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir. 1980). See also
Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th
Cir. 2004) (stating that federal courts are not required to
“assume facts that are not alleged, just because an
additional factual allegation would have formed a stronger
complaint”). In addition, affording a pro se complaint
the benefit of a liberal construction does not mean that
procedural rules in ordinary civil litigation must be
interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who proceed
without counsel. See McNeil v. United States, 508
U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
has filed a pro se employment discrimination complaint
against defendant the Union Station Hotel on April 29, 2019.
The Court reviewed the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915 on June 12, 2019.
June 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order, the Court noted that in
his complaint, plaintiff had checked the box indicating that
he was bringing his lawsuit pursuant to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
(“ADEA”), as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621,
et seq. However, he alleged in his complaint that he
was discriminated against by his employer based on his race
(African-American), religion (unknown), national origin
(unknown) and gender. In the body of his complaint, plaintiff
also alleged that he was “retaliated against due to
being a whistleblower and exposing Human Resources Director
(Staci Simpson) devious racial biases and inconsistencies
when it relates to disciplinary actions and hiring practices.
Court informed plaintiff that although his complaint appeared
to have been timely filed, his claims in this lawsuit did not
match the claims outlined in his Charge of Discrimination
filed with the EEOC, which was attached as an exhibit to his
Charge of Discrimination, plaintiff marked the boxes for race
and national origin discrimination. He also asserted in the
body of his Charge that he believed he had been terminated
from his position as Loss Prevention Supervisor at the St.
Louis Union Station Hotel due to race and national origin
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
Plaintiff did not claim discrimination on the basis of age
under the ADEA, nor did he claim gender discrimination,
religious discrimination or retaliation in his Charge.
June 12, 2019 Memorandum and Order, the Court ordered
plaintiff to file an amended complaint that contained claims
“like or reasonably related to” the claims
outlined in his Charge of Discrimination. Plaintiff was
warned that his failure to set forth his claims in such a
manner would likely result in those claims being dismissed.
plaintiff's claims in court must be like or reasonably
related to the claims outlined in his administrative charge
or they will be subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. See, e.g., Duncan v. Delta
Consolidated Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir.
2004). To allow “a complaint to encompass allegations
outside the ambit of the predicate EEOC charge would
circumscribe the EEOC's investigatory and conciliatory
role, as well as deprive the charged party of notice of the
charge, as surely as would an initial failure to file a
timely EEOC charge.” Williams v. Little Rock Mun.
Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 223 (8th Cir. 1994).
Therefore, a plaintiff's claims of employment
discrimination in his or her complaint “may be as broad
as the scope of the EEOC investigation which reasonably could
be expected to result from the administrative charge.”
Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir.
amended complaint, plaintiff has once again checked the boxes
claiming religion, color and gender discrimination, in
addition to his claims of race and national origin
discrimination. Plaintiff also claims that he was unlawfully
terminated and ...