Automated Summary
Key Facts
Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Schmitz filed a Title VII gender discrimination claim against ALM Holding Company. ALM Holding Company moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, arguing Schmitz failed to name them as a respondent in her EEOC charge. The court granted the motion, dismissed Schmitz's claim against ALM Holding Company without prejudice, and removed ALM Holding Company from the case.
Issues
Whether plaintiff's Title VII gender discrimination claim against ALM Holding Company should be dismissed because the plaintiff failed to name ALM as a respondent in her EEOC charge, and there is no evidence ALM had adequate notice and opportunity to participate in conciliation proceedings.
Holdings
The court granted Defendant ALM Holding Company's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Schmitz's Title VII gender discrimination claim against ALM Holding Company is dismissed without prejudice because she failed to exhaust administrative remedies—the EEOC charge did not name ALM Holding Company as a respondent, and there was no evidence ALM had an opportunity to participate in conciliation proceedings on its own behalf. ALM Holding Company is to be removed from the case.
Remedies
The court granted Defendant ALM Holding Company's motion to dismiss, dismissed Plaintiff Jennifer Lynn Schmitz's Title VII gender discrimination claim against ALM Holding Company without prejudice, and removed ALM Holding Company from the case.
Legal Principles
The court applied Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the plaintiff's Title VII gender discrimination claim against ALM Holding Company due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiff's EEOC charge, incorporated by reference into the amended complaint, did not name ALM Holding Company as a respondent. Under Title VII, a party must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before bringing suit, and a party not named as a respondent in the charge ordinarily may not be sued in a private civil action. An exception exists only when the unnamed party had adequate notice of the charge and an opportunity to participate in conciliation proceedings, which was not demonstrated here.
Precedent Name
- Massey v. Helman
- Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co.
- Gunn v. Cont'l Cas. Co.
- Hale v. Bd. of Trs. of S. Ill. Univ. Sch. of Med.
- Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rts., Ltd.
- Alam v. Miller Brewing Co.
- Williams v. City of Chicago
Cited Statute
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Judge Name
James D. Peterson
Passage Text
- Accordingly, I will grant the motion, dismiss Schmitz's gender discrimination claim against ALM Holding Company, and remove it from the case.
- Schmitz's EEOC charge, which is incorporated by reference into the amended complaint, fails to name ALM Holding Company as a respondent.
- Before bringing suit under Title VII, a party must file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and a party not named as a respondent in the charge ordinarily may not be sued in a private civil action under Title VII.