Cummings v. Princeton Univ.

RANDALE L. CUMMINGS, Plaintiff, v. PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 15-8587 (FLW)(LHG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

October 31, 2016

Not for Publication

OPINION

Hon. Freda L. Wolfson, U.S.D.J.:

Presently before the Court is the motion of Defendant Princeton University to dismiss the complaint of Plaintiff Randale L. Cummings, pro se, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. The Complaint in this case seeks relief for employment discrimination on the basis of race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies on his race discrimination claim before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). As set forth below, because Plaintiff's Title VII race discrimination claim was not fairly within the scope of the EEOC charge he pursued before the administrative agency, Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. Defendant's motion is granted, and the Complaint is dismissed, without prejudice.

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing a motion to dismiss on the pleadings, the court "accept[s] all factual allegations as true, construe[s] the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine[s] whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief."¹ Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 233 (3d Cir. 2008) (citation and quotations omitted). As such, a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted does not attack the merits of the action but merely tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2009); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) ("[a] pleading that states a claim for relief ... must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief"). In other words, to survive a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Id. (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

"As a general matter, a district court ruling on a motion to dismiss may not consider matters extraneous to the pleadings. . . . However, an exception to the general rule is that a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" may be considered "without converting the motion [to dismiss] into one for summary judgment." In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997). "[A] court may consider an undisputedly authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document." In re Donald J. Trump Casino Sec. Litig.-Taj Mahal Litig., 7 F.3d 357, 368 n.9 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir. 1993). A court may also consider "any 'mattersincorporated by reference or integral to the claim, items subject to judicial notice, matters of public record, orders, [and] items appearing in the record of the case.'" Buck v. Hampton Twp. Sch. Dist., 452 F.3d 256, 260 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting 5B Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (3d ed. 2004)). Where any of these requirements are met, courts may rely on the underlying EEOC file in evaluating a plaintiff's employment discrimination claim. See Ruddy v. U.S. Postal Serv., 455 F. App'x 279, 283 (3d Cir. 2011) ("District Court properly relied on [plaintiff's] EEOC file, which [plaintiff] referenced in his complaint and which is integral to his claim.").

Courts are required to liberally construe pleadings drafted by pro se parties. Tucker v. Hewlett Packard, Inc., No. 14-4699 (RBK/KMW), 2015 WL 6560645, at *2 (D.N.J. Oct. 29, 2015) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). Such pleadings are "held to less strict standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Id. Nevertheless, pro se litigants must still allege facts, which if taken as true, will suggest the required elements of any claim that is asserted. Id. (citing Mala v. Crown Bay Marina, Inc., 704 F.3d 239, 245 (3d Cir. 2013)). To do so, [a plaintiff] must plead enough facts, accepted as true, to plausibly suggest entitlement to relief." Gibney v. Fitzgibbon, 547 Fed. Appx. 111, 113 (3d Cir. 2013) (citing Bistrian v. Levi, 696 F.3d 352, 365 (3d Cir. 2012)). "Liberal construction does not, however, require the Court to credit a pro se plaintiff's 'bald assertions' or 'legal conclusions.' " Id. (citing Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir. 1997)). That is, "[e]ven a pro se complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the allegations set forth by the plaintiff cannot be construed as supplying facts to support a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief. Id. (citing Milhouse v. Carlson, 652 F.2d 371, 373 (3d Cir. 1981)).

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In setting forth the facts of the case on Defendant's motion to dismiss, the Court relies upon the Complaint, the EEOC Dismissal and Notice of Rights as a document attached to the Complaint, and the EEOC Notice of Charge of Discrimination and Charge of Discrimination as undisputedly authentic documents attached to Defendant's motion to dismiss upon which Plaintiff's claims are based and as part of the underlying EEOC administrative record incorporated by reference into Plaintiff's Complaint. See in re Burlington, 114 F.3d at 1426.

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination against his former employer, Defendant Princeton University, with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights and the EEOC. March 16, 2016 Declaration of Linda Wong, Esq., Ex. A, 3. In the field setting forth the basis of discrimination, only the box for disability is checked. Id. The box for race discrimination is not checked. Id. The field setting forth the particulars of Plaintiff's claim reads:

I began working for the above employer in February 2010 as a Janitor. I suffer from a disability that the employer is aware of. On February 4, 2014 I was discharged from my position, effective February 7, for exceeded 26 weeks out on workman's compensation, as per their policy. I was told that I could reapply when I was clear to return to work. I was cleared to return to work with no restrictions on March 5, 2014. Since then I have reapplied multiple times, but have not received a response. Given the above, I believe I have been discriminated against on account of my disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and ADA Amendments Act of 2008.

Id. The field setting forth the date on which the discrimination against Plaintiff is alleged to have taken place states that defendant was discriminated against on February 4, 2014, the date of his termination. Id.

On October 3, 2014, the EEOC sent Defendant a Notice of Charge of Discrimination, informing Defendant that a charge of employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act had been filed against them by Plaintiff. Id. at 1. In the fields setting forth the legal basis of the alleged discrimination and the circumstances of the alleged discrimination, onlythe boxes for the Americans with Disabilities Act and disability discrimination are checked. Id. The boxes for Title VII and race discrimination are not checked. Id.

On October 23, 2015, the EEOC mailed Plaintiff a Dismissal and Notice of Rights, stating that the EEOC was unable to conclude the information obtained during the course of their investigation established a violation of the statute(s) charged. Compl. p. 3.

Plaintiff filed the present Complaint on December 14, 2015. The Complaint alleges one count of employment discrimination on the basis of race, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Complaint states that Defendant was allegedly discriminated against on February 7, 2014, the effective date of his termination, and again states that the alleged discriminatory act was his discharge by Defendant. Compl. ¶ 5. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges:

Plaintiff was discharge When he was out of work due to work related Injury and was not allowed to return after reapplying a number of times for that same position.

Id. at ¶ 10. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint on March 3, 2016. The motion was returnable April 18, 2016. Plaintiff failed to oppose the motion. Considering Plaintiff's status as a pro se litigant, the Court, by letter order issued July 20, 2016, extended Plaintiff's time to respond to the motion to August 3, 2016. Plaintiff opposed the motion on August 2, 2016. Defendant responded in further support of its motion on August 16, 2016.

III. ANALYSIS

In its motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's Complaint must be dismissed, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the Complaint's Title VII claim for race discrimination was not charged before the EEOC, was never investigated or considered for resolution by the EEOC, and therefore was not covered by the October 23, 2015 Notice of Rights to Sue.

Failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a defense that may be raised by a defendant on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Angelino v. New York Times, Co., 200 F.3d 73, 87-88 (3d Cir.1999). "A complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted unless it asserts the satisfaction of the precondition to suit specified by Title VII: prior submission of the claim to the EEOC for conciliation or resolution." Robinson v. Dalton, 107 F.3d 1018, 1022 (3d Cir. 1997). Title VII provides strict guidelines for bringing an action against an employer for employment discrimination, requiring that claimants first file a timely-action with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)...