Ahmad v. Connections CSP Inc.

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 8/24/2016. (mdb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

RABIA AHMAD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CONNECTIONS CSP, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civ. No. 15-1052-GMS

MEMORANDUM

I.

INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff Rabia Ahmad ("Ahmad") filed this action against defendant Connections

CSP, Inc. ("Connections" or "Defendant") alleging employment discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (D.I. 1). She proceeds pro
se. The comi has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim. (D.I. 3). For the reasons stated below, the court will deny Defendant's
motion to dismiss.
II.

BACKGROUND
Ahmad is a former counselor in the Key Program at the Howard Young Correctional

Institution staffed by Connections pursuant to a contract with the Delaware Department of
Corrections. (D.I. 3, Ex.Bat 2). On July 16, 2014, Ahmad filed a Charge of Discrimination (the
"Charge") with the Delaware Department of Labor ("DDOL") alleging discrimination by
Connections based on sex and religion. (D.I. 3, Ex. A). On August 6, 2014, Connections submitted
its Position Statement in Opposition to the Charge. (Id., Ex. B). On July 2, 2015, the DDOL
1

issued its Final Determination and Right to Sue Notice finding no cause to further pursue Ahmad's
Charge. (Id., Ex. C). This determination was also adopted by the United States Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). (Id.).
On November 16, 2015, Ahmad filed the present complaint using a form provided by the
court. (D.I. 1). In completing the form, Ahmad stated that she was "refused entry to return to
work. They purposely provided fraudulent information to the department of labor in retaliation to
block me from receiving unemployment benefits." (Id. at 2). Attached to the complaint was: (i)
the DDOL's Final Determination and Right to Sue Notice; (ii) the DDOL's Notice of Rights; (iii)
the verified Charge filed with the DDOL; (iv) a letter from the EEOC to Ahmad addressing her
request for review of the DDOL's findings; and (v) the EEOC's Dismissal and Notice of Rights.
(D.I. 1).

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Defendant seeks dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (D.I. 3). Under Rule

12(b)(6), a motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, a court concludes
that those allegations "could not raise a claim of entitlement to relief." Bell At!. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 558 (2007). "To survive a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face." Williams v. BASF Catalysts LLC, 765 F.3d 306, 315 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). Because Ahmad proceeds prose, her pleading is

liberally construed and her complaint, "however inartfully pleaded must be held to less stringent
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(internal quotation marks omitted).

2

IV.

DISCUSSION
Connections argues that Ahmad's complaint must be dismissed because: (i) it "does not

present allegations relating to any purported discrimination during her employment with
Connections that was the subject of her Charge;" and (ii) it instead presents allegations that
"Connections fraudulently provided information to the DDOL that prevented her from returning
to work or receiving unemployment benefits," which was not the subject of her Charge. (DJ. 3 ~~
6-7).
Connections is correct that Ahmad has "not properly presented to the Court" her allegations
that fraudulent information was given to the DDOL. (DJ. 3

~

6). Before a plaintiff can seek

judicial relief, she must first "exhaust all required administrative remedies." Robinson v. Dalton,
107 F.3d 1018, 1020 (3d Cir. 1997). A plaintiff alleging a claim under Title VII must first file a
Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful practice, or
within 300 days if first filed with a state agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l) (2009). A plaintiff
may file a Title VII claim in federal court only after filing a charge with the EEOC. Robinson,
107 F.3d at 1021. Ahmad has not filed a charge with the EEOC claiming that Connections gave
fraudulent information to the DDOL. But that does not mean that Ahmad's complaint must be
dismissed.
In reviewing a motion to dismiss, the contents of exhibits attached to a complaint are
considered a part of the complaint. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1196; Watson v.

Dept. of Servs. for Children, Youths and Their Families Del., 2013 WL 1222853, at *5 (D.Del.
Mar. 26, 2013) (considering an EEOC charge of discrimination attached to the complaint as part
of the content of complaint and finding that the contents of that attachment helped demonstrate
that plaintiff had adequately alleged Title VII race discrimination claims). Ahmad attached the

3

Charge to her complaint. In light of Ahmad's pro se status, the court finds that her claims of
discrimination based on sex and religion during her employment with Connections are properly
before the court. Connections has not argued that the allegations in the Charge fail to state a claim.
Accordingly, Connections motion to dismiss is denied.
V.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to dismiss 1s denied.

appropriate order will be entered.

Dated: August~' 2016

4

(D.I. 3).

An