KASSA v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC

Filing 14

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Dismiss Complaint. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 02/06/2017. (CCL)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
KELI D. KASSA,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC.,

*

Defendant.

CASE NO. 4:16-CV-333 (CDL)

*

O R D E R
Plaintiff

Keli

Columbus, Georgia.
parent

Kassa

(“ADEA”),

LifePoint

under

29

for

St.

Francis

Hospital

in

She brought this action against the hospital’s

corporation,

discrimination

worked

the

U.S.C. §§

Age

Health,

Inc.,

Discrimination

621-634,

and

in

disability

claiming

age

Employment

Act

discrimination

under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §
12101 et seq.
arguing

that

action.

LifePoint Health, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss,
Kassa

did

not

timely

file

her

Complaint

in

this

For the reasons set forth below, LifePoint Health Inc.’s

motion (ECF No. 7) is granted.
Both

the

ADEA

and

the

ADA

require

plaintiffs

to

exhaust

administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with
the

appropriate

administrative

29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1);

agency

before

42 U.S.C. § 12117(a);

filing

suit.

(stating

the

procedures set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 apply in employment
actions

under

the

ADA);

42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5.

If

the

administrative agency dismisses the charge or otherwise terminates
the proceedings, the agency must send the plaintiff notice of that
decision; once the plaintiff receives that notice, she may file a
civil action within ninety days.
2000e-5(f)(1).

29 U.S.C. § 626(e); 42 U.S.C. §

“Dismissal is appropriate when the plaintiff fails

to file her lawsuit within 90 days of receiving a right-to-sue
letter, unless she shows that the delay was through no fault of
her own.”

Bryant v. U.S. Steel Corp., 428 F. App’x 895, 897 (11th

Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

“Once the defendant contests the issue,

the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that she filed her
claim within 90 days of receiving the notice.” Id.
Kassa asserts that she brought this action within ninety days
after receiving a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment
Opportunity

Commission

(“EEOC”).

She

filed

a

charge

of

discrimination with the EEOC on June 23, 2016, alleging that she
was suspended and terminated from her job because of her age and
disability in January 2016.

Compl. ¶ 5, ECF No. 1; Compl. Ex. A,

June 2016 EEOC Charge, ECF No. 1-1.

Kassa named LifePoint Health,

Inc. as her employer with a street address of 2122 Manchester
Expressway in Columbus, Georgia and an alternate address of 330
Seven Springs Way in Brentwood, Tennessee.

June 2016 EEOC Charge.

Kassa received a right-to-sue letter on July 25, 2016.

Compl.

¶ 6; Compl. Ex. B, July 2016 Right-to-Sue Letter, ECF No. 1-2.
She filed this action within ninety days, on October 13, 2016.

2

Based on these facts, standing alone, Kassa’s present action would
be timely.

But that is not the end of the story.

LifePoint Health, Inc. argues that this action is untimely
because

Kassa

previously

filed

an

EEOC

charge

regarding

her

suspension and termination, received a right-to-sue letter, and
filed

a

civil

prejudice.

action

in

this

Court

but

dismissed

it

without

All of the records relating to the prior EEOC charge,

prior right-to-sue letter, and prior action were filed in this
Court,

and

the

Court

“may

take

judicial

notice

of

its

own

records.”

Solis v. Glob. Acceptance Credit Co., L.P., 601 F.

App’x

771

767,

(11th

Cir.

2015)

(per

curiam)

(quoting

United

States v. Rey, 811 F.2d 1453, 1457 n.5 (11th Cir. 1987)).
Kassa

filed

a

charge

of

discrimination

with

the

EEOC

on

February 26, 2016, alleging that she was suspended and terminated
from her job because of her age and disability in January 2016.
4:16-cv-192 Compl. Ex. A, Feb. 2016 EEOC Charge, ECF No. 1-1 in
4:16-cv-192.
a

street

Georgia.

Kassa named “LifePoint Health” as her employer with

address

of

2122

Manchester

Feb. 2016 EEOC Charge.

Expressway

in

Columbus,

The only difference between

Kassa’s February 2016 EEOC charge and her June 2016 charge is that
she named “LifePoint Health” instead of “LifePoint Health, Inc.”
in February and she only provided the 2122 Manchester Expressway
address.

Kassa received a right-to-sue letter on March 17, 2016.

4:16-cv-192 Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 1 in 4:16-cv-192.

3

She filed her

prior action on June 8, 2016; that action was against “LifePoint
Health

Solutions,

LLC.”

At

some

point,

Kassa

learned

that

LifePoint Health Solutions, LLC is not the parent company of St.
Francis Hospital.

Instead of seeking to amend her Complaint to

add LifePoint Health, Inc., Kassa filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal on June 20, 2016.
LifePoint Health, Inc. argues that the Court should disregard
the second EEOC charge as an improper attempt to restart the 90day clock for filing Kassa’s lawsuit.

Kassa, on the other hand,

contends that the Court should disregard her first EEOC charge and
right-to-sue letter because she named “LifePoint Health” and not
“LifePoint

Health,

Inc.”

in

her

original

EEOC

charge.

Kassa

contends that these are completely different entities and that
LifePoint Health Inc. was not named in the first EEOC charge.
Kassa did not name LifePoint Health Solutions, LLC in either EEOC
charge.
The Court finds Kassa’s argument to be unpersuasive.
EEOC

charges,

Kassa

states

that

she

worked

for

St.

In both
Francis

Hospital and that an entity called LifePoint Health (or LifePoint
Health, Inc.) acquired St. Francis shortly before her termination.
And in both her Complaints, it is clear that Kassa intends to
bring suit against the LifePoint Health that acquired St. Francis
Hospital.

Thus, the Court finds that “LifePoint Health” named in

4

the first EEOC charge is the same entity as “LifePoint Health,
Inc.” named in the second EEOC charge.
Kassa’s second EEOC charge is based on the exact same facts
as her first EEOC charge.

Both right-to-sue letters are likewise

based on the same facts.

The Court agrees with the rationale of

Soso Liang Lo v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 787 F.2d 827, 828
(2d Cir. 1986) (per curiam) and finds that under the circumstances
presented here, the question whether Kassa’s present action is
time-barred “must be determined with reference to only the first
Notice of Right to Sue.”
42

U.S.C.

§

Id.

2000e-5(f)(1)

“Otherwise, the time limitations of
[and

29 U.S.C. § 626(e)]

would

be

meaningless, because potential . . . plaintiffs could evade those
requirements simply by seeking additional Notices of Right to Sue
whenever they pleased.”
within

ninety

days

Id.

after

Here, Kassa did not file this action
receiving

following her February 2016 EEOC charge.

the

right-to-sue

letter

This action is therefore

time-barred.
CONCLUSION
As discussed above, LifePoint Health Inc.’s motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 7) is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 6th day of February, 2017.
s/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

5