Pearson v. Augusta, Georgia, No. 1:2015cv00123 - Document 16 (S.D. Ga. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER granting Plaintiff's motion to consolidate (CV114-110, doc 28). The Clerk is instructed to consolidate case numbers CV114-110 and CV115-123. The case will now go forward as case number CV114-110. The Court will reserve ruling on pending m otions for summary judgment until all additional motions have been filed. Furthermore, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant City of Augusta's 10 Motion to dismiss (Pearson II doc. 10). Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/02/2016. (thb)

Download PDF
Pearson v. Augusta, Georgia Doc. 16 IN THE UNITED FOR THE STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISION * MELINDA.BEASLEY PEARSON, * Plaintiff, * * v, * CV 114-110 * AUGUSTA, * GEORGIA through its Mayor Hardie Davis, Jr., in his official capacity, and its * * * commission, in its official capacity et al., * Defendants. ORDER I. Background In May 2014, Plaintiff Melinda Pearson filed suit against the City of Augusta ("the City"), Fred Russell, Bill Shanahan, Sam Smith, and two unnamed defendants claims ("Pearson I") . (Doc. 1.) to dismiss 16, remain: and (docs. (1) (2) Protection. 15, 17, alleging a number of Following Defendants' motions 18), only the following claims FMLA and FSLA retaliation claims against the City claims for (Doc. 1.) violation of Due The parties Process litigated and this Equal matter Dockets.Justia.com through the judgment 54, 55, are 56, however, based of 10, 57, II") . the pending 58.) same motions the Court's the close v a second Augusta, second case, facts five on initiated This and after Just Pearson 2015) . on discovery, currently Plaintiff ("Pearson Aug. close as the No. the discovery, claim, a VII disability-discrimination claim. City (S.D. Ga. which the parties admit first Title the 115-123 case, asserts race- gender-discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII, work-environment (Docs. against CV summary docket. of case for retaliation (Doc. 6.) is and a hostile- claim, and a Plaintiff now moves to consolidate Pearson I and Pearson II. In November discrimination because 2012, with of her race. employment with the the Plaintiff EEOC (Doc. City a that she claiming 28, was filed Exs. 3, 7.) terminated, Plaintiff did not receive was Then, demoted filed (Doc. 28, Exs. her right-to-sue of after her Plaintiff second charge with the EEOC in April 2013. 10.) charge letter a 3, for these charges until July 2015, and she filed her complaint in Pearson II on August 10, 2015 based on these alleged violations. (Doc. 28, Ex. 14.) At no time during the Pearson I litigation did Plaintiff or her counsel inform Defendants about the pending EEOC charges. Nor did Plaintiff ever move to litigation pending receipt of her right-to-sue letter. Plaintiff chose to wait until she received the stay the Instead, right-to-sue letter and initiate the separate action, creating the procedural quagmire the Court now faces. II. 1. Discussion Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Plaintiff under Federal involve a Rule common 42(a)(2). brought seeks to of Civil question Defendants all consolidate of Procedure of 42 fact. argue that her Pearson claims Pearson the Fed. two R. II cases Civ. P. Plaintiff should have together, consolidation is Although the Court agrees that Plaintiff should inappropriate. have brought all of her claims together, circumstances, and because See because I under these facts and Plaintiff was not required to do so. Any time a plaintiff seeks to bring a Title VII case, the plaintiff must first file a charge with the EEOC and receive notice of her right to sue § 2000e-5(f) (1) ; Forehand v. 1567 (11th Cir. 1996). the Fla. defendant. State Hosp., If 180 days passes 42 89 F.3d without U.S.C. 1562, the EEOC taking action on the charge, the EEOC must notify the plaintiff of her right to bring suit. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) . However, if a plaintiff does not receive the right-to-sue letter after the 180-day period has expired, without rule. the letter and request she may bring the claim equitable modification Fouche v. Jekyll Island-State Park Auth., of the 713 F.2d 1518, 125-26 (11th Cir. 1983); Gonzalez v. Nat'l Settlement Sols., No. 14-80484 2014 WL 4206812, this case, Defendants at *2-3 argue (S.D. that Fla. Aug. Plaintiff 25, could 2014). have In begun demanding action from the EEOC earlier and that she could have filed suit without Court suspects the that letter. in most Defendants cases, are correct, this would have occurred. But Defendants have not pointed to any authority that Plaintiff to file her claims without a right-to-sue then seek equitable modification. that argument considering have. and would the That is, Pearson preclusive would generally 18 Procedure reaches § 4404. proper and required letter and And denying the motion on lead effect to an denying unjust result consolidation may if the Court denies the motion to consolidate I Plaintiff possibly and the likely Wright GRANTS final face a & Miller Accordingly, Plaintiff's judgment before claim-preclusion et al., Federal the Court finds motion. The Pearson II, issue. See Practice and consolidation Court, however, instructs the parties to continue to follow the scheduling order issued in Pearson II until the April 9, 2016 motions deadline. 2. Motions for Summary Judgment In Pearson I, judgment pending. there are currently five motions for summary (Docs. 54, 55, 56, 57, 58.) As noted, pursuant to the scheduling order in Pearson II, motions on those issues are currently due April 9, 2016. To avoid confusion and facilitate judicial efficiency, the Court will reserve ruling on the motions filed in Pearson I until after motions have been filed on the issues presented in Pearson II. however, reminded that the motions have already been address only arguments Pearson 3. issues presented in fully briefed and related to the the are Pearson I instructed to legal issues raised in II is the City's motion to II. The City's Motion to Dismiss Currently pending dismiss. (Pearson in Pearson II Doc. consolidated these cases, 10.) Because exhaust the Court it will now address this motion. City's motion raises three issues: to The parties are, administrative has The (1) res judicata; (2) failure remedies; and (3) statute of limitations. The City's mentioned res above: discrimination judicata argument that Plaintiff claims under is based on the theory should the have theory brought of her equitable modification. Because final judgment has not been entered in Pearson because I and this case has now dismissal on this issue is not appropriate. Aircraft Corp., that, 244 F.3d 1289, 1296 for res judicata to be proper, final judgment on the merits.") . been consolidated, See In re Piper (11th Cir. 2001) (noting "there must have been a On this issue, the City's motion is DENIED. In her disability amended complaint, discrimination with Plaintiff respect to raised her claims for demotion and termination, and the City now moves to dismiss the claim based on her demotion because Plaintiff's EEOC charge did not address such a claim. not In her exhaust conceding her that (Pearson II Plaintiff admits that administrative dismissal Doc. Plaintiff's response, 12 at remedies on that 1 n.l.) for issue disability-discrimination that is Accordingly, claim she did claim, appropriate. with respect to on her based demotion, the City's motion is GRANTED. The City's Plaintiff's statute-of-limitations complaint alleging facts argument as far is based back as on 1999. Plaintiff's response clarifies that her claim is based on acts within the statutory period and that presented as background information. complaint, the previous acts are Upon review of the amended and in light of Plaintiff's explanation, the Court cannot say that Plaintiff is basing her claims on acts that occurred outside of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the City's motion on this issue is DENIED. III. For the reasons Conclusion discussed above, Plaintiff Pearson's motion to consolidate (doc. 28) is GRANTED. Melinda The Clerk is instructed to CONSOLIDATE case numbers CV 114-110 and CV 115- 123. This case will now go forward as case number CV 114-110. The Court will RESERVE RULING on the pending motions for summary judgment until Furthermore, the all additional Court GRANTS motions in part 6 have been and DENIES filed. in part Defendant City of Augusta's motion ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, to dismiss Georgia this £><-_ (Pearson II doc. day of March, 2016, UNITEjy STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

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.