United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
EURAL R. THOMAS, Plaintiff,
ST. LOUIS BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CHARLES A. SHAW, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's first amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6),
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, filed by defendant Special
Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of
St. Louis. Plaintiff has not filed a response and the
time to do so has passed. For the following reasons, the
Court will grant defendant's motion.
is a former employee of defendant whose employment was
terminated in June of 2018. On February 8, 2019, plaintiff
filed this action as a pro se litigant against defendant on
the Court's form Employment Discrimination Complaint.
Plaintiff checked boxes indicating his complaint is brought
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title
VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
(“ADA”). Plaintiff also checked the box for
“Other” and listed the following additional
claims: “Equal Pay Act, Violation of the Collective
Bargaining Agreement, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, The
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, The Missouri
Administrative Procedures Act 168.281, Emotional Distress,
Invasion of Privacy, Retaliation, Defamation.” (Doc.
1). Under the heading titled “Nature of the Case,
” plaintiff checked boxes for (1) failure to hire me;
(2) termination of my employment; (3) failure to accommodate
my disability; (4) terms and conditions of my employment
differ from those of similar employees; (5) retaliation; (6)
harassment; and (7) other conduct, which he indicated as:
“Worked In a ‘Hostile Work Environment' [and]
Constant Ignoring of Company Rules, Regulations and
Policies.” (Doc. 1).
to filing the complaint, plaintiff filed a Charge of
Discrimination (“Charge”) with the Missouri
Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”) and the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
(Docs. 27-1, 1-1). In the Charge, plaintiff checked only the
box for “Retaliation” as his basis for
discrimination. In the space provided for “particulars,
” plaintiff described defendant's allegedly
I. I was hired by the St. Louis Board of Education as a
Custodian in June 1990. I was employed as a Stationary
Engineer at the time of my discharge on June 5, 2018. I
believe that my discharge was in retaliation for my
participation as a Trustee on the Pension Board and for my
service as a Shop Steward for the union.
II. I was discharged for violations of SAB Policy - 4840 Code
of Conduct and Ethics. The allegations levied against me are
untrue and my discharge was not handled in accord with
Missouri Statute, Chapter 168, Section 168.281.1 and in
violation of the School Board's own policies.
III. I believe that I have been discriminated against by
being discharged on the basis of retaliation, in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; and in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
EEOC provided plaintiff with a notice of right to sue. (Doc.
1-1). The MCHR, however, issued plaintiff a Notice of
Termination of Proceedings, stating that it lacked
jurisdiction over the matter because the complaint did not
involve an activity covered by the Missouri Human Rights Act
(“MHRA”). (Doc. 27-3).
March 5, 2019, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, motion for a more definite statement, arguing
that plaintiff's complaint did not sufficiently plead
detailed or specific factual allegations as to his claims.
(Doc. 8). On March 27, 2019, the Court issued an order
affording plaintiff an opportunity to cure the alleged
pleading defects and granted plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
15(a)(2). (Doc. 12).
April 23, 2019, counsel filed an entry of appearance on
behalf of plaintiff. (Doc. 13). On May 20, 2019, plaintiff,
now represented by counsel, filed a first amended complaint,
alleging disability discrimination under the MHRA
§§ 213.010, et seq., Mo. Rev. Stat. (Count
I), and the ADA (Count II). (Doc. 21). Specifically,
plaintiff alleges he was discriminated against by defendant
as a result of a diagnosed medical condition and that
disability was the motivating factor in defendant's
termination of plaintiff. Retaliation is not included as a
claim in the first amended complaint.
moves to dismiss plaintiff's claims under the MHRA and
ADA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies prior to
bring suit. It is well settled a plaintiff may not bring a
claim that was not included in the administrative charge to
the EEOC. Lindeman v. Saint Luke's Hosp. of Kansas
City, 899 F.3d 603, 608 (8th Cir. 2018) (plaintiff must
administratively exhaust specific claim under ADA prior to
filing suit); Russell v. TG Missouri Corp., 340 F.3d
735, 748 (8th Cir. 2003) (same). Likewise, under the MHRA,
“[t]he filing of an administrative complaint ‘is
a prerequisite to seeking judicial relief.'”
Richter v. Advance Auto Parts, Inc., ...