Eagle v. Bill Alexander Automotive Center Incorporated
ORDER granting 21 Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court enters judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff's ADEA claim for hostile work environment to the extent Plaintiff attempted to allege a separate claim for harassmen t/hostile work environment under the ADEA. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Defendant's request to strike certain paragraphs from the Complaint and denying without prejudice Defendant's request for attorneys' fees. Signed by Judge James A Teilborg on 6/5/12.(LSP)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc.,
Defendant Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc. filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment on October 12, 2011. (Doc. 21). Defendant seeks judgment on
Plaintiff James Eagle’s claim for a hostile work environment under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
jurisdiction over the hostile work environment claim because Plaintiff’s EEOC charge
does not mention harassment/hostile work environment.
Defendant argues the Court lacks
The Court does not need to decide whether Plaintiff exhausted a claim for
harassment/hostile work environment under the ADEA in his administrative charge
because Plaintiff concedes in his Response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
that he is not attempting to state a separate, stand-alone ADEA claim for hostile work
environment. (Doc. 31, p. 2 “Mr. Eagle is not asserting a separate claim for a hostile
work environment based upon his age, sixty-seven.”). The Court therefore grants partial
summary judgment to Defendant on Plaintiff’s claim for harassment/hostile work
environment under the ADEA, to the extent Plaintiff even attempted to allege such a
separate claim. Plaintiff’s claim for discrimination in violation of the AEDA remains.
In its Reply, Defendant asks the Court to strike paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, F
and G of the Complaint. The Court will deny this request because Defendant has not
articulated a legal basis for striking those sections of the Complaint, and it appears the
time for filing a motion to strike pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) has
passed because Defendant already has answered the Complaint.
12(f)(2)(Party must file a motion to strike “either before responding to the pleading or, if
a response is not allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.”).
Moreover, the Court agrees with Plaintiff that any age-related comments or behavior by
Defendant could be relevant to Plaintiff’s age-discrimination claim.
Also in the Reply, Defendant asks the Court to award it attorneys’ fees for having
to brief the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court will deny this request as
well because Defendant again does not articulate a legal basis for its request. This denial
is without prejudice to Defendant filing a properly supported motion for fees.
IT IS ORDERED GRANTING Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Doc. 21). The Court enters judgment for Defendant on Plaintiff’s ADEA
claim for hostile work environment to the extent Plaintiff attempted to allege a separate
claim for harassment/hostile work environment under the ADEA.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying Defendant’s request to strike certain
paragraphs from the Complaint.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying without prejudice Defendant’s request
for attorneys’ fees.
Dated this 5th day of June, 2012.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?