Rush v. Arkansas DWS, No. 17-1457 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed a pro se complaint in district court, alleging sex, race, and age discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The Eighth Circuit found that plaintiff likely adequately exhausted her remedies, and her pleadings indicated this prerequisite, especially on a motion to dismiss. Even if the lack of an initial verified charge would have indicated lack of exhaustion, the documents plaintiff supplied with her objections, including a copy of the verified charge mailed on July 28 and received by the EEOC, plus the Notice of Right to Sue, indicated she had cured any deficiency in the exhaustion requirements. Finally, the district court's failure to conduct a de novo review after plaintiff filed timely and specific objections was reversible error. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with directions to allow plaintiff to amend her pleadings.
Court Description: Per Curiam - Before Wollman, Beam and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment discrimination. The district court erred in dismissing the matter on the ground plaintiff had failed to exhaust her administrative remedies; district court's failure to conduct a de novo review after plaintiff field timely and specific objections was reversible error; on remand, plaintiff should be allowed to amend her pleadings.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.