Boyd v. ERMC, II, LP et al

Filing 41

OPINION. An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 3/11/2015. (dmn, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
MARTINE D. BOYD,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
ERMC, II, LP, a foreign
limited partnership,
Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:14cv591-MHT
(WO)

OPINION
Plaintiff Martine D. Boyd charges defendant ERMC,
II, LP, with sexual harassment under Title VII of the
Civil

Rights

Act

of

1964,

as

amended

(42

U.S.C.

§§ 1981a & 2000e through 2000e-17), and negligence and
wantonness

under

Alabama

state

law.

The

court

has

original jurisdiction over her federal claims under 28
U.S.C.

§§ 1331

(federal

question)

and

1343

(civil

rights), and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) (Title VII).
The

court

has

supplemental

jurisdiction

state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

over

her

This action

originated in state court and was removed to federal

court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

It is now before

the court on ERMC’s motion for summary judgment.
During

an

on-the-record

conference

call

held

on

March 9, 2015, Boyd conceded that she did not file her
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charge
within the requisite 180-day statutory period, and that
her federal claim

accordingly was time-barred.

See

National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S.
101,

109

(2002)

(holding

that

Title

VII

requires

plaintiffs to file EEOC charges within 180 days after
the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred, and
that

plaintiffs

may

not

sue

on

discrete

acts

of

discrimination that occur outside this statutory time
period).
the

court

Therefore, by agreement of the parties and
having

made

an

independent

assessment,

summary judgment is due to be entered in favor of ERMC
on Boyd’s federal claims.
An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE, this the 11th day of March, 2015.
_/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE