Automated Summary
Key Facts
Debra Elizabeth Andrews sued 1788 Chicken, LLC d/b/a Zaxby's under Title VII alleging sexual harassment at a Zaxby's restaurant. Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to exhaust EEOC administrative remedies, claiming Plaintiff's charge of discrimination was filed after the 180-day statutory deadline. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on exhaustion grounds but found the intake questionnaire's 'request-to-act' status ambiguous, requiring further discovery. The Court struck Plaintiff's amended complaint for unauthorized amendments including new defendants and causes of action, ordering Plaintiff to file a second amended complaint within one week and Defendant to respond within two weeks.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiff's EEOC intake questionnaire, filed within 180 days of alleged discrimination, met the Holowecki 'request-to-act' requirement to establish that she properly exhausted administrative remedies before filing her Title VII claim.
- Whether the plaintiff's amended complaint contained unauthorized amendments beyond the scope of the court's prior order, specifically regarding new causes of action and additional defendants.
Holdings
The court denied the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss regarding the Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies, finding it plausible the Plaintiff may have exhausted her claim through her EEOC intake questionnaire. However, the court struck the Plaintiff's amended complaint for unauthorized amendments (new causes of action and defendants filed without leave). The court ordered the Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint within one week complying with prior orders, and the Defendant to file a responsive pleading within two weeks thereafter. The case shall proceed to discovery absent settlement or resolution.
Remedies
- The court struck Plaintiff's amended complaint due to unauthorized amendments (new causes of action and defendants). Plaintiff was ordered to file a Second Amended Complaint within one week that complies with the court's prior order, differing only in material regarding administrative exhaustion.
- The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, finding it plausible that Plaintiff may have exhausted administrative remedies, and determining that the intake questionnaire may satisfy the request-to-act requirement.
- After Plaintiff refiles her Second Amended Complaint, Defendant shall have two weeks to file its responsive pleading, and the case shall proceed to discovery without further delay absent nonjudicial settlement or resolution.
Legal Principles
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 governs amendments to pleadings. Amendments made after the time to amend 'as a matter of course' requires either defendant's written consent or court leave. Unauthorized amendments are subject to being struck by the court.
- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit. The Holowecki 'request-to-act requirement' mandates that an intake questionnaire must demonstrate an individual's intent to have the EEOC initiate investigatory and conciliatory processes. The court found the intake questionnaire was not definitively a valid charge of discrimination, requiring further discovery to determine if it satisfied the request-to-act requirement.
- Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows dismissal when a plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The court must accept plaintiff's factual allegations as true and determine if they state a plausible claim for relief.
Precedent Name
- Goode v. Early Encounters, Inc.
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
- Clay v. Sunrise Breach Corp.
- Fed. Express Corp. v. Holowecki
- EEOC v. Vantage Energy Services, Inc.
- Featherston v. D.C.
- Hicks v. Acell Inc.
Cited Statute
- Civil Rights Act of 1964
- Code of Federal Regulations
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Judge Name
Henry T. Wingate
Passage Text
- This Court, specifically, would like more information about how the local EEOC inquiry process works and what notices might be displayed to a claimant as he or she submits an inquiry that do not appear on the form that Plaintiff has submitted here. This may well require Plaintiff to takethird-party discovery from the EEOC. Defendant, then, shall be free to re-raise its exhaustion defense through a motion for partial summary judgment, after Plaintiff has had a reasonable opportunity to develop its record on this matter.
- IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Defendant's motion ([Docket No. 29]) is DENIED, and Plaintiff has one (1) week from the date of this order to file with this Court a Second Amended Complaint, which complies with this Court's prior order (that is, differing from Plaintiff's original complaint only in the material regarding administrative exhaustion which Plaintiff added in the first amended complaint). Defendant, thereafter, will have two (2) weeks tofile its responsive pleading. The case shall, thereafter, proceed to discovery without further delay—notwithstanding further motion practice—absent nonjudicial settlement or resolution.
- Given these ambiguities, this Court is not prepared to conclude on the pleadings alone whether Plaintiff's intake questionnaire satisfied Holowecki's 'request-to-act requirement'—and, thus, whether Plaintiff indeed exhausted her administrative remedies before filing this suit. This Court, therefore, finds it most appropriate to deny the Defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The parties, thereafter, during the course of discovery, may further explore this issue of exhaustion.