Collucci v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 3:2014cv00397 - Document 26 (E.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 12/04/2014. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Collucci v. Tyson Foods, Inc. Doc. 26 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division PAUL A. COLLUCCI, Plaintiff', Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-397-JAG V. TYSON FARMS, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION The plaintiff brings this employment discrimination action after filing for bankruptcy. The defendant contends that the Court should apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to bar the plaintiffs suit because of his failure to disclose his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charge during the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court finds that the bankruptcy court did not "accept" the plaintiff's position that he had no legal claims against the defendant because the bankruptcy court has yet to grant the plaintiff relief or close his bankruptcy case. For this reason, the Court denies the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. I. Facts' The plaintiff, Paul A. Collucci ("Collucci"), worked for Tyson Farms ("Tyson") as a Human Resources manager at the Glen Allen and Crewe facilities in Virginia. On January 26, 2011, Collucci filed a charge against Tyson with the EEOC, claiming age discrimination. ' The standard ofreview for a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as the standard used in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. See Independence News, Inc. V. City of Charlotte, 568 F.3d 148, 154 (4th Cir. 2009). A Rule 12(c) motion tests the sufficiency of a complaint; it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts of the case, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of any defense. Republican Party ofN.C. v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). In considering the motion, a court must accept all allegations in the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See Edwards v. City ofGoldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,244 (4th Cir. 1999). Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
