Pearson v. Augusta, Georgia et al

Filing 132

ORDER granting 28 Motion to Consolidate Cases. The Clerk is instructed to consolidate case numbers CV114-110 and CV115-123. The case will now go forward as case number CV114-110. The Court will reserve ruling on pending motions for summary judg ment until all additional motions have been filed. Furthermore, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant City of Augusta's motion to dismiss (Pearson II doc. 10). Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 03/02/2016. (thb) Modified on 3/2/2016 (thb).

IN THE UNITED
FOR THE

STATES DISTRICT

COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
AUGUSTA DIVISION

*

MELINDA.BEASLEY PEARSON,

*

Plaintiff,
*
*

v,

*

CV

114-110

*

AUGUSTA,

*

GEORGIA through its

Mayor Hardie Davis, Jr., in his
official capacity, and its

*

*
*

commission, in its official
capacity et al.,

*

Defendants.

ORDER

I.

Background

In May 2014, Plaintiff Melinda Pearson filed suit against
the City of Augusta ("the City"), Fred Russell, Bill Shanahan,
Sam Smith,

and

two

unnamed

defendants

claims ("Pearson I") .

(Doc. 1.)

to dismiss

16,

remain:

and

(docs.

(1)

(2)

Protection.

15,

17,

alleging

a number

of

Following Defendants' motions
18),

only the following claims

FMLA and FSLA retaliation claims against the City

claims

for

(Doc.

1.)

violation

of

Due

The parties

Process

litigated

and
this

Equal
matter

through

the

judgment
54,

55,

are
56,

however,

based

of

10,

57,

II") .

the

pending

58.)

same

motions

the

Court's

the

close

v

a

second

Augusta,

second case,

facts

five

on

initiated

This

and

after

Just

Pearson

2015) .

on

discovery,

currently

Plaintiff

("Pearson

Aug.

close

as

the

No.

the

discovery,

claim,

a

VII

disability-discrimination claim.

City

(S.D.

Ga.

which the parties admit

first

Title

the

115-123

case,

asserts

race-

gender-discrimination claims pursuant to Title VII,
work-environment

(Docs.

against

CV

summary

docket.

of

case

for

retaliation

(Doc. 6.)

is
and

a hostile-

claim,

and

a

Plaintiff now moves

to consolidate Pearson I and Pearson II.

In

November

discrimination

because

2012,

with

of her race.

employment

with

the

the

Plaintiff
EEOC

(Doc.

City

a

that

she

claiming

28,

was

filed

Exs.

3,

7.)

terminated,

Plaintiff

did not receive

was

Then,

demoted

filed

(Doc. 28, Exs.

her right-to-sue

of

after her

Plaintiff

second charge with the EEOC in April 2013.
10.)

charge

letter

a
3,
for

these charges until July 2015, and she filed her complaint in
Pearson II on August 10, 2015 based on these alleged violations.
(Doc. 28, Ex. 14.)

At no time during the Pearson I litigation

did Plaintiff or her counsel inform Defendants about the pending

EEOC

charges.

Nor

did

Plaintiff

ever

move

to

litigation pending receipt of her right-to-sue letter.
Plaintiff

chose

to

wait

until

she

received

the

stay

the

Instead,

right-to-sue

letter and initiate the separate action,

creating the procedural

quagmire the Court now faces.

II.

1.

Discussion

Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate

Plaintiff

under

Federal

involve

a

Rule

common

42(a)(2).

brought

seeks

to

of

Civil

question

Defendants

all

consolidate

of

Procedure

of

42

fact.

argue that

her

Pearson

claims

Pearson

the

Fed.

two

R.

II

cases

Civ.

P.

Plaintiff should have

together,

consolidation

is

Although the Court agrees that Plaintiff should

inappropriate.

have brought all of her claims together,
circumstances,

and

because

See

because

I

under these facts and

Plaintiff was not required to do so.

Any time a plaintiff seeks to bring a Title VII case, the

plaintiff must first file a charge with the EEOC and receive
notice

of

her

right

to

sue

§ 2000e-5(f) (1) ; Forehand v.
1567

(11th Cir.

1996).

the

Fla.

defendant.

State Hosp.,

If 180 days passes

42

89

F.3d

without

U.S.C.

1562,

the EEOC

taking action on the charge, the EEOC must notify the plaintiff
of

her

right

to

bring

suit.

42

U.S.C.

§ 2000e-5 (f) (1) .

However, if a plaintiff does not receive the right-to-sue letter

after the 180-day period has expired,
without

rule.

the

letter

and

request

she may bring the claim

equitable modification

Fouche v. Jekyll Island-State Park Auth.,

of

the

713 F.2d 1518,

125-26 (11th Cir. 1983); Gonzalez v. Nat'l Settlement Sols., No.

14-80484 2014 WL 4206812,

this

case,

Defendants

at *2-3

argue

(S.D.

that

Fla.

Aug.

Plaintiff

25,

could

2014).

have

In

begun

demanding action from the EEOC earlier and that she could have
filed suit without

Court suspects

the

that

letter.

in most

Defendants

cases,

are

correct,

this would

have

occurred.

But Defendants have not pointed to any authority that
Plaintiff to

file her

claims without a right-to-sue

then seek equitable modification.

that

argument

considering
have.
and

would

the

That is,
Pearson

preclusive

would

generally

18

Procedure

reaches

§ 4404.

proper

and

required

letter and

And denying the motion on

lead

effect

to

an

denying

unjust

result

consolidation

may

if the Court denies the motion to consolidate

I

Plaintiff

possibly

and the

likely

Wright

GRANTS

final

face

a

& Miller
Accordingly,

Plaintiff's

judgment

before

claim-preclusion

et

al.,

Federal

the Court finds

motion.

The

Pearson

II,

issue.

See

Practice

and

consolidation

Court,

however,

instructs the parties to continue to follow the scheduling order
issued in Pearson II until the April 9, 2016 motions deadline.
2.

Motions for Summary Judgment

In Pearson I,

judgment pending.

there are currently five motions for summary

(Docs.

54,

55,

56,

57,

58.)

As noted,

pursuant to the scheduling order in Pearson II, motions on those
issues are currently due April 9, 2016.

To avoid confusion and

facilitate judicial efficiency, the Court will reserve ruling on
the motions

filed in Pearson I until after motions

have been

filed on the issues presented in Pearson II.
however,

reminded

that

the

motions

have

already been

address

only

arguments

Pearson

3.

issues

presented

in

fully briefed and

related

to the

the

are

Pearson

I

instructed to

legal

issues

raised

in

II is the

City's

motion

to

II.

The City's Motion to Dismiss

Currently pending
dismiss.

(Pearson

in Pearson

II

Doc.

consolidated these cases,

10.)

Because

exhaust

the

Court

it will now address this motion.

City's motion raises three issues:
to

The parties are,

administrative

has

The

(1) res judicata; (2) failure

remedies;

and

(3)

statute

of

limitations.

The City's
mentioned

res

above:

discrimination

judicata argument

that

Plaintiff

claims

under

is based on the theory

should

the

have

theory

brought

of

her

equitable

modification.

Because final judgment has not been entered in

Pearson

because

I

and

this

case

has

now

dismissal on this issue is not appropriate.

Aircraft Corp.,
that,

244

F.3d 1289,

1296

for res judicata to be proper,

final judgment on the merits.") .

been

consolidated,

See In re Piper

(11th Cir.

2001)

(noting

"there must have been a

On this

issue,

the City's

motion is DENIED.

In

her

disability

amended

complaint,

discrimination

with

Plaintiff

respect

to

raised

her

claims

for

demotion

and

termination, and the City now moves to dismiss the claim based

on her demotion because Plaintiff's EEOC charge did not address

such a claim.
not

In her

exhaust

conceding

her

that

(Pearson II

Plaintiff admits that

administrative

dismissal

Doc.

Plaintiff's

response,

12

at

remedies

on

that

1 n.l.)

for

issue

disability-discrimination

that

is

Accordingly,

claim

she did
claim,

appropriate.

with

respect

to

on

her

based

demotion, the City's motion is GRANTED.

The

City's

Plaintiff's

statute-of-limitations

complaint

alleging

facts

argument
as

far

is

based

back

as

on

1999.

Plaintiff's response clarifies that her claim is based on acts
within

the

statutory

period

and

that

presented as background information.
complaint,

the

previous

acts

are

Upon review of the amended

and in light of Plaintiff's explanation,

the Court

cannot say that Plaintiff is basing her claims on acts that
occurred outside of the statute of limitations.

Accordingly,

the City's motion on this issue is DENIED.

III.

For

the

reasons

Conclusion

discussed

above,

Plaintiff

Pearson's motion to consolidate (doc. 28) is GRANTED.

Melinda

The Clerk

is instructed to CONSOLIDATE case numbers CV 114-110 and CV 115-

123.

This case will now go forward as case number CV 114-110.

The Court will RESERVE RULING on the pending motions for summary

judgment

until

Furthermore,

the

all

additional

Court

GRANTS

motions
in part

6

have

been

and DENIES

filed.
in part

Defendant

City of Augusta's

motion

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta,

to

dismiss

Georgia this £><-_

(Pearson II

doc.

day of March,

2016,

UNITEjy STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA