Stallworth v. Evans Distribution Sys.

1

LEWIS STALLWORTH, Plaintiff, v. EVANS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-11727

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

May 5, 2023

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 13]

DENISE PAGE HOOD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Lewis Stallworth has sued Defendants Evans Distribution Systems (“EDS”), Patrick Swaney (“Swaney”), and Richard Huziack (“Huziack”),^[1] alleging Defendants violated his rights pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint [ECF No. 13]. Plaintiff filed a response to which Defendants replied. A hearing was held on March 13 2023. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss Complaint is granted, and Plaintiff's cause of action is dismissed.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff has worked for EDS since October 2018 as a warehouseman, and he continues to work for EDS in that position. Plaintiff is a member of a UAW union. On September 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against EDS with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights (“MDCR”) and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), alleging that he earned unequal wages and was disciplined because of his race (African-American). ECF No. 13, Ex. 1. The charge includes the following statements:

I was suspended most recently on or around July 14, 2020. I believe I am being disciplined because I am African-American.

On or around July 1, 2020, I became aware that a similarly situated Caucasian employee has a higher hourly wage than I. I believe my race is a factor for the unequal wages.

Id. The last claim of unequal treatment occurred on or about July 14, 2020.

On March 28, 2022, the MDCR dismissed Plaintiff's charge of discrimination, stating that there was “insufficient evidence to proceed.” ECF No. 13, Ex. 2. On or about April 25, 2022, the EEOC adopted the MDCR's findings, dismissed the EEOC charge, and provided Plaintiff with a Notice-to-Sue. ECF No. 1, PageID.10. On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants discriminated against him for “unequal terms and conditions of [his] employment” and “retaliation.” ECF No. 1, PageID.5. Plaintiff alleges:

A. unlawful discrimination based upon race/color for disciplinary issues on the following dates: April 27, 2021, May 4, 2021, May 7, 2021, June 4, 2021 and June 23, 2021;

B. unspecified “retaliation” claim on an unknown date;

C. that on April 27, 2021, he was written up for failing to follow procedure;

D. that he was suspended on May 4, 2021;

E. that he was on suspension and a meeting was held on May 7, 2021 without his participation;

F. that on an unknown date, “Management” made a “false statement saying that I harassed co-worker harassment will get you fired I need help.”

ECF No. 1, PageID.6.

The Complaint does not mention any specific claim regarding unequal pay, only that he wanted to be “compensated fairly.” Id. at PageID.9. There are no allegations against Patrick Swaney or Richard Huziack; i.e., neither individual was mentioned other than in the caption.

III. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) provides for the dismissal of an action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction can challenge the sufficiency of the pleading itself (facial attack) or the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction (factual attack). United States v. Ritchie, 15 F.3d 592, 598 (6th Cir. 1994). A facial attack goes to the question of whether the plaintiff has alleged a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, and the court takes the allegations of the complaint as true for purposes of Rule 12(b)(1) analysis. Id.

A factual attack challenges the factual existence of subject matter jurisdiction. In the case of a factual attack, a court has broad discretion with respect to what evidence to consider in deciding whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, including evidence outside of the pleadings, and has the power to weigh the evidence and determine the effect of that evidence on the court's authority to hear the case. Id. Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists. DLX, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 381 F.3d 511, 516 (6th Cir. 2004).

Cartwright v. Garner, 751 F.3d 752, 759-60 (6th Cir. 2014).

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's complaint. Accepting all factual allegations as true, the court will review the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Eidson v. Tennessee Dep't of Children's Servs., 510 F.3d 631, 634 (6th Cir. 2007). As a general rule, to survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint must state sufficient “facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint must demonstrate more than a sheer possibility that the defendant's conduct was unlawful. Id. at 556. Claims comprised of “labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

IV. ANALYSIS

In Plaintiff's response, he completed a court form titled “RESPONSE TO MOTION” as follows:

STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED

1. Why the Court should deny the Motion?

Court should deny motion on the basis of discrimination, harassment, misrepresentation, m[anager] misconduct. This has been an ongoing[g] issue for over 2 yrs. I have filed with the EEOC, [MDCR], m[anagement] has not/is not being held accountable. I feel my situation needs to be heard by the courts.

I have b[ee]n offered settlement of resolution, however I didn't feel it was appropriate for the last 2-3 yrs of mental anguish, anxiety, uncertainty.

Best of my knowledge I received r[ight] to sue letter 4/27. I would also . . . clarify the name of the defendant m[anager] Richard Huziack. Defendant Patrick Swaney was very dishonest, made false statements that I harassed my supervisor. [A]ll these statements are true facts that I have submitted. [sic] Mr. Swaney has falsely accused me of harassment. Harassment will get you fired. The statement that I accused my supervisor when I and Armondo agreed I had never harassed him at any time. I was suspended for this. However Armondo admitted that this never took place.

Controlling or Most Appropriate Legal Authority

(List any federal laws, court cases, court rules, etc., that support your position. This may include the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's local rules.)

Discrimination, Retaliation, Exploitation at workplace. Harassment. [F]iled discrimination, harassment charges 8/20

ARGUMENT

(Explain why the court should deny the motion. State how any rules, statutes, or cases support your position. You may refer to documents to support your position. These documents should be attached to this brief as exhibits, unless they were previously filed with the Court.)

I have filed numerous grievances with the union local 337 represented by Mr. Denzer however situation at work worsen[e]d. Presently I'm under Doctor's care, Doc Ghar. The beginning not a safe, working environment. [sic] Almost 2 yrs I received right to sue letter 5/22. It's very difficult, not knowing, understanding why I'm being subjected unfair treatment etc. at work. I understand everything that all my grievances are factual, and have witness. I have submitted all requested info. However unfortunately I have no attorney representation.

ECF No. 15, PageID.135-38.

A. Timeliness of Complaint

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Complaint was not timely filed. The Notice of Right to Sue issued by the EEOC provided that any “lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 days of your receipt of this notice.” ECF No. 1, PageID.10.

Defendants state that the Notice of Right to Sue was provided to Plaintiff on April 25, 2022. Citing ECF No. 1, PageID.10. The Court notes, however, that April 25, 2022 is the date of the Notice of Right to Sue was issued and that “[r]eceipt generally occurs on the date you (or your representative) view this document. You should keep a record of the date you received this notice.” Id. Plaintiff represents that, to the “[b]est of my knowledge I received ri[ght] to sue letter 4/27.” ECF No. 15, PageID.135.

The Court finds that 90 days after April 27, 2022 is July 26, 2022. It is undisputed that Plaintiff filed his Complaint on July 26, 2022. Accordingly, the Court denies Defendants' timeliness argument and concludes that Plaintiff timely filed his Complaint.

B. Exhaustion of Remedies

In designating the procedure for challenging prohibited employment discrimination under Title VII, Congress gave initial enforcement responsibility to the EEOC. Thus, an employee alleging employment discrimination in violation of the statute must first file an administrative charge with the EEOC within a certain time after the alleged wrongful act or acts. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1). The charge must be “sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). As a general rule, a Title VII plaintiff cannot bring claims in a lawsuit that were not included in his EEOC charge. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co., 415 U.S. 36, 47, 94 S.Ct. 1011, 39 L.Ed.2d 147 (1974). This rule serves the dual purpose of giving the employer information concerning the conduct about which the employee complains, as well as

...