LOCKETTE v. COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT

Filing 8

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 7 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D. LAND on 11/9/2017 (tlf).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
COLUMBUS DIVISION
ERIKA J. LOCKETTE,

*

Plaintiff,

*

vs.

*

COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENT,

*

CASE NO. 4:17-CV-47 (CDL)
*
Defendant.
*
O R D E R
Plaintiff Erika Lockette alleges that she is employed by
the

Columbus

Court

of

alleged

Consolidated

Muscogee

employer,

Government

County.
CCG,

for

She
race

(“CCG”)

asserts
and

age

in

claims

the

Juvenile

against

her

discrimination

and

retaliation pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29
U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff’s

Complaint, contending that CCG is not Plaintiff’s employer and
that the actions taken against her were taken by employees of
the Juvenile Court of Muscogee County, acting in their capacity
as state officers and not as agents of CCG.

Defendant seeks

dismissal of Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim because she

never presented that claim to the EEOC and thus has failed to
exhaust her administrative remedies as to that claim.
Defendant’s

motion

to

dismiss

Plaintiff’s

Title

discrimination and retaliation claims must be denied.

VII

Although

the record may be different at summary judgment, the present
record, which is restricted to the allegations in Plaintiff’s
Complaint,

establishes

that

discriminatory

and

retaliatory

adverse employment actions were taken against her as an employee
of CCG.

Plaintiff has clearly stated a claim under Title VII,

and CCG’s motion to dismiss her race and retaliation Title VII
claims is denied.
Plaintiff never mentioned an age discrimination claim in
her EEOC charge.

Therefore, the Court finds that she has failed

to exhaust her administrative remedies as to that claim, and it
must

be

dismissed.

Plaintiff’s

other

claims

for

race

discrimination and retaliation are reasonably connected to her
charge

of

dismissed
(ECF No. 7)

discrimination,
at
is

this

and

time.

granted

as

those

claims

Defendant’s
to

Plaintiff’s

shall

motion
ADEA

to
claim

not

be

dismiss
and

is

denied in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 9th day of November, 2017.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

2