Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 07-24-2014
Case Style:
Case Number: 13-CV-1348
Judge: David L. Russell
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney:
Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma civil rights lawyer represented Plaintiff who sued Defendant on an Americans With Disabilities Act violation theory.
Plaintiff filed this action alleging discrimination on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. She also alleges claims of retaliation, including a claim that she was subjected to retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. Plaintiff first filed an EEOC charge on June 18, 2013, alleging:
I. On about April 22, 2013 I returned to work to my position of Adv Tech and presented my employer with doctor's release to work with restrictions. I requested reasonable accommodation for my disability which my employer is aware of and the ADA paperwork to complete. I completed the ADA paperwork and gave it to my employer. On April 22, 2013 and May 1, 2013 I was threaten (sic) if I do not return to work on April 22, 2013 and May 13, 2013 it would be considered a resignation. I objected and complained to my employer by letter dated May 6, 2013.
On or about May 16, 2013 I contacted my employer and was advised I was discharged as of May 13, 2013. I have been employed with the Company since about April 2003.
II. No reason was given for my denial of reasonable accommodation or my discharge.
III. I believe I have been discriminated against because of my Race, Black in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and due to my Disability & Retaliation ion violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended.
Citing to Manning v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City, 522 Fed.Appx. 438 (10th Cir. April 12, 2103), Defendant contends that Plaintiff's filing with the EEOC was insufficient to exhaust her administrative remedies, and therefore this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims under Title VII or the ADA.
"Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under Title VII."
Jones v. Runyon, 91 F.3d 1398, 1399 (10th Cir.1996) (quotation omitted). "[A] plaintiff normally may not bring a Title VII action based upon claims that were not part of a timely-filed EEOC charge for which the plaintiff has received a right-to-sue letter." Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep't of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Servs., 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.1999). In addressing whether dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate, we may consider documents submitted by the parties to resolve any jurisdictional fact questions. See Sizova v. Nat'l Institute of Standards & Tech., 282 F.3d 1320, 1324-25 (10th Cir.2002). The only document presented by the parties is Plaintiff's EEOC charge quoted above.
Outcome: Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: