Bolden v. S.A.B.E, No. 6:2015cv00084 - Document 19 (S.D. Ga. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 12 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 07/26/2016. (thb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Bolden v. S.A.B.E Doc. 19 IN THE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT FOR THE OF GEORGIA STATESBORO DIVISION HARVIS BOLDEN, * JR., Plaintiff, * * v. * S .A. B .E . r 6:15-cv-84 * * Defendant. * ORDER Presently dismiss. (Doc. Plaintiff's exhaust claim 12.) the Court is age and race discrimination failure to Defendant's motion to Defendant's motion seeks the dismissal of administrative for granted. before remedies state a and claim For the reasons below, claims for failure Plaintiff's upon which to retaliation relief may be Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him because of his race and age. (Am. Compl., Doc. 4 at 2. ) He further alleges that Defendant retaliated against him for filing an Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission in February 2012. ("EEOC") charge (Id^ at 3-4.) Dockets.Justia.com Defendant has terminated first time in June 2012. a charge of September parties race Plaintiff in age (2012 chose to EEOC Charge, and 2012 VII occasions, Doc. pay Doc. him 12., the 12, Ex. EEOC Ex. in in A.) agreed $300 the Plaintiff filed with Defendant and (Mediation Settlement Agreement, part, two discrimination mediate, November on After his termination, and 2012. Plaintiff to lost B at 2. ) The rehire wages. For his Plaintiff agreed "not to institute a lawsuit under Title ... or based on" his the Age 2012 his 2012 charge, Discrimination EEOC Charge. in (Id. at Employment 1.) Plaintiff returned to work. Act (ADEA) After mediating (Am. Compl., Doc. 4 at 4.) Around again. (Am. termination, January 30, Compl., Plaintiff 2013, Doc. Defendant 4 at 2-4.) filed a second terminated Plaintiff Immediately after his EEOC charge, this time claiming retaliation for opposing unlawful employment practices. (Id. at 4; 2013 EEOC Charge, Doc. 12, Ex. C.) He did mention race or age discrimination in the 2013 EEOC Charge. 2013 EEOC Charge, Doc. (See 12, Ex. C.) Plaintiff received a right-to-sue letter from the April 2015 and commenced this suit in July 2015. Doc. 4 at 4, 6.) not Defendant then moved to dismiss. EEOC in (Am. Compl., (Doc. 12.) II. LEGAL STANDARD Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), must contain "a short that the pleader is a complaint and plain statement of the claim showing entitled to relief" to give the defendant fair notice of both the claim and the supporting grounds. Atl. Corp. v. defendant's complaint right must to Rule must a 550 than labels elements Rule of above at 544, motion enough the claim to Rule 12(b)(6) U.S. 12(b)(6) U.S. allegations, 550 include relief "state Twombly, Twombly, 555 to speculative 570. that To dismiss, "factual relief (2007). a survive a plaintiff's allegations level," Bell and to raise those a facts is plausible on a complaint attacked by a Although its face." motion need not be buttressed by detailed factual the plaintiff's pleading obligation "requires more and conclusions, a cause of and a action formulaic 555. The 8 pleading standard "demands more than an unadorned, the- defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me 556 U.S. At 662, 678 (2009) will not do." recitation of the accusation." (quoting Twombly, the same time, Id. at Ashcroft 556 U.S. a complaint should not be v. Iqbal, at 555). dismissed for failure to state a claim "unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff entitle him to (1957); see 2011 WL Marshall can no relief." also 4500050, Cnty. prove Bd. Kabir at set of Conley v. v. *2 circumstances Gibson, Statebridge (N.D. of Educ. v. Ga. Co., Sept. Marshall 355 U.S. No. 27, Cnty. that would 41, 45-46 1:ll-cv-2747, 2011) Gas (citing Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, must accept construe to 1174 (11th as all true 1993)). facts standard than 2008) rewrite Defendant an light most and favorable 312 F.3d 1222, 1225 are held less deficient Giles v. also moved ... a discrimination action is a lawyers 517 a and are F.3d 1249, 2010). matter dismiss to ... Title Dept. adjudication on the merits, VII" for failure order to administrative filing of the exhaustion abatement to 359 F. an and not remedies employment Civil of exhaust Rights 402 F. Act App'x administrative generally an an exhaustion defense . . . should be raised in a motion to dismiss." (quotations omitted). in of Homeland Sec, "Because in pleading (internal quotations omitted). "Exhausting under Tillary v. U.S. Cir. by to Wal-mart Distribution Ctr., to prerequisite is filed Alba v. Montford, otherwise remedies. remedies complaint serve as de facto counsel for a party, administrative (11th Court Ramsey, pleadings App'x 91, 93 (11th Cir. 2008) 421 the the the . . . , this liberal construction does not sustain an action." of 1964. in stage, se pleadings "[a]lthough pro (11th Cir. to in Hoffman-Pugh v. give a court license to or this alleged inferences generally construed liberally, 252 At 2002) . Further, stringent all reasonable the plaintiff. (11th Cir. Cir. Tillary, 402 F. App'x at 424 Ill. A. Motion to Dismiss DISCUSSION for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies for Race and Age Claims Defendant argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff's race and age claims because he failed to exhaust his administrative 2013 EEOC remedies filing. dismissal of As by not including explained Plaintiff's below, race those the claims Court in his finds discrimination that claims is warranted. Failure abatement and, Rule 12(b) v. first exhaust administrative remedies although non-jurisdictional, motion. Seaboard 1982) . to Tillary, Coast Line R. 402 Co., F. F.2d a may be App'x at 678 is in raised in 424; 992, matter see 1005 a Jackson (11th Cir. "Prior to filing a Title VII action . . . , a plaintiff must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC." Gregory v. Ga. Dep't of Human Res., 355 F.3d 1277, 1279-80 (11th Cir. 2004). claims are The Eleventh allowed if Circuit they amplify, "has noted clarify, focus the allegations in the EEOC complaint, that allegations inappropriate." limited by reasonably the be discrimination." of Id. new A scope the to Alexander 1332 (11th Cir.2000) of "plaintiff's of expected acts EEOC grow v. that or more clearly but has cautioned discrimination judicial out of County, are complaint investigation Fulton judicial the 207 which can charge F.3d is of 1303, (internal quotation and citation omitted). "The proper complaint inquiry was here like or therefore related is to, whether or [Plaintiff's] grew out allegations contained in her EEOC charge." Gregory, of, the 355 F.3d at 1279-80. The face Plaintiff of did Plaintiff's not 2013 include allegations.1 charge, race In particular, discrimination but not the Doc. Charge, that boxes 12, he for Ex. believed C or at Charge or age marked age 1.) Defendant reveals for his "retaliation" the basis box discrimination. Likewise, that discrimination to identify the Plaintiff race EEOC (2013 Plaintiff discriminated EEOC indicated against him in retaliation for his opposition to unlawful employment practices. (Id.) The 2013 EEOC Charge is silent regarding race and age, and race or age claims are not related to and do not grow out of the allegations in the 2013 EEOC Charge. Defendant's motion 1 Although precedent Rich permits directs exhaustion of the the district to dismiss present Court to courts administrative motion for is consider to on a a the Court GRANTS failure 12(b) these resolve remedies Thus, to motion, documents. factual motion exhaust to circuit Bryant v. disputes as to dismiss if (1) the factual disputes do not decide the merits of the claims and (2) the parties had a sufficient opportunity to develop the record. Tillary, 402 F. App'x at 423 (citing Bryant v. Rich, 530 F.3d 1368 (11th Cir. 2008)). Here, resolving Defendant's motion will not require the Court to consider the merits of Plaintiff's claim, and the Court gave Plaintiff notice that it was considering Defendant's motion to dismiss and an opportunity to develop the record. (See Docs. 13, 17.) Plaintiff filed an additional objection to Defendant's motion to dismiss including exhibits in support of his position. (Doc. 18.) Accordingly, Bryant permits the Court to consider Plaintiff's 2012 and 2013 EEOC Charges and the Mediation Settlement. (Doc. 12, Exs. A-C.) administrative remedies for Plaintiff's race and age claim fails discrimination claims. B. Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Retaliation Claim Defendant to state a Plaintiff argues claim that upon failed to Plaintiff's which plead relief a causal retaliation may be granted connection because between his termination and protected activity. A prima facie case for Title VII retaliation requires plaintiff to activity, suffered a materially adverse employment action, causal show that link between the 627 F.3d 849, 856 he engaged two. Dixon v. (11th Cir. 2010). survive a motion to dismiss, that the adverse Univ. retaliation action, of Tex. 2517, 2533 not Sw. in a The "but-for" just a substantial (2013)). Hallmark Cos., and a Inc., a plaintiff must plausibly allege a Ctr. protected For a retaliation claim to was Med. statutorily a V. cause or Nassar, But-for of the motivating U.S. causation employer's factor. , 133 S.Ct. does not require Plaintiff to submit proof that retaliation was the only cause of the employer's action. Plaintiff must only show "that the adverse employment action would not have occurred in the absence of the protected activity." Smith v. City of New Smyrna Beach, 588 F. App'x 965, 981 (11th Cir. 2014). Courts have construed the causal link element broadly. survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff is only To required to allege that the "that there Defendant was a close awareness and the adverse F.3d 1211, 1220 knew (11th of the temporal protected proximity . . . action." Cir. 2004). If there such as more than three months, activity and additional Thomas v. facts that action, of a demonstrate Cooper Lighting, 2007) . However, methods adverse Inc., a a is a evaluating the instead must read account relevant sufficiency causal the complaint context." a 1364 WL several Therefore, [a] retaliation 2015 See (11th Cir. only one of holistically El-Saba, allege connection. connection. of 393 significant must court cannot simply engage in a rote evaluation of in this Jackson, plaintiff 506 F.3d 1361, causal and between the protected close temporal proximity is demonstrating between Higdon v. time gap, the activity "a time lag claim, but take into and 5849747, at *15 (internal quotations omitted). Turning to Charge for Plaintiff's race termination and age constituted allegations, Plaintiff's discrimination following protected suffered a materially adverse activity, employment six-month second gap between termination is and EEOC first Plaintiff Defendant Only the existence Defendant argues that the the first not sufficiently demonstrate a causal connection. his action when terminated his employment in January 2013. of a causal connection is in dispute. 2012 EEOC claim close in in 2012 and proximity the to In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges returning to work after the mediation of his Defendant locked Plaintiff's notice and engaged in other acts valuable work engagements. Saba, 2015 recurring be WL sufficient Lettieri 5849747, retaliatory satisfy Inc., Additionally, at persuaded the Court from animus to Plaintiff's this 2012 that *15 a the 478 Doc. that of 640, 650 litigation, Charge 4.); without rather miss see El- "evidence period causation") (4th Cir. temporal than the of can (quoting Defendant it should measure EEOC 4 at intervening element of shop forced Plaintiff to the F.3d upon 2012 EEOC Charge, repair (noting during stage that in (Am. Compl., at Equant v. truck that, 2007)). has not proximity mediated settlement of the charge in November 2012, which occurred just two months January 735, before 2013. 739 Defendant See Ward (11th Cir. v. 2014) terminated United Plaintiff Parcel (evidence again Serv. , 580 F. demonstrating in App'x that an employer acted upon the first opportunity to retaliate against an employee could show a causal connection); Dale v. Wynne, 497 F.Supp. 2d 1337, 1346 (M.D. Ala. 2007) ("In this instance, a six-week gap is enough to show temporal proximity, particularly because Dale's return to work was the first opportunity Wilson had to retaliate against her."). Given the context supplied by his pleadings, Plaintiff plausibly alleged a causal connection between his termination and the filing of his 2012 EEOC Charge. The Court, therefore, DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claim. ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this ^<£^"day of July, 2016. HONC ^ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SOUTHERN 10 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.
