Barneman v. International Longshoreman Association Local 1423

Filing 57

ORDER denying Defendants' 54 Brief in Support/Opposition (Renewed Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies). Signed by Judge Lisa G. Wood on 8/1/2018. (ca)

Ktt

^j^niteb ^totesc Bisitntt Conrt

for t|ie ^ootl^ent SBisitrttt of(Heorgto
pintnototc]^ Btbtoton
RAYFIELD L. BARNEMAN,

Plaintiff,
NO. 2:17-CV-51
V.

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMAN

ASSOCIATION,
SSA COOPER,

LOCAL 1423;
LLC; MARINE

TERMINAL CORPORATION-EAST;
RO-RO

ATLANTIC

STEVEDORING,

LLC;

APS

STEVEDORING

LLC;

GEORGIA

STEVEDORING

and

ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.

*

ORDER

This Matter comes before the Court on the renewed Motion to

Dismiss of Defendants APS Stevedoring, LLC (^'APS"), Atlantic Ro-

Ro

Stevedoring,

Association

("Marine

LLC

("GSA"),

Terminal").

(''Atlantic
and

Marine

Dkt.

Nos.

reasons, this Motion is DENIED.

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

Ro-Ro"),

Georgia

Terminal

17,

54.

Stevedoring

Corporation-East

For

the

following

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint in this Court on May 3,

2017 against International Longshoreman Association Local 1423
(^'ILA").

He retained counsel and amended his complaint on May

22, 2017, adding the other Defendants.

had

only

named

Defendants

filed

ILA

GSA

motion

a

and

as

to

Because his EEOC charges

Defendants,

dismiss,

the

arguing,

remaining

among

other

things, that Plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies with regard to them.

Dkt. No. 17.

On

February 1,

2018, this Court gave the parties 14 days to submit additional
briefing on that question.
Dkt. Nos. 53, 54, 55.

serve

Dkt. No. 53.

They have now done so.

The Court also ordered that Plaintiff

GSA, Marine Terminals, Atlantic Ro-Ro, and

dismissal.

APS or

risk

Dkt. No. 53.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal

Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

8(a)

requires

that

a

plaintiff s complaint contain ^^a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Civ.

P.

8(a).

In

order

to

state

a

claim

for

Fed. R.

relief,

a

plaintiff's complaint must include ''enough facts to state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face."

Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly,

"A

550

plausibility
allows

the

U.S.
when

court

544,
the
to

570

(2007).

plaintiff
draw

the
2

pleads

claim

factual

reasonable

has

facial

content

inference

that

that
the

defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."

Iqbal^

556

U.S.

662,

678

(2009).

The

Ashcroft v.

Court

accepts

the

allegations in the complaint as true and draws all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiff.

Ray v. Spirit Airlines,

Inc., 836 F.3d 1340, 1347 (11th Cir. 2016).

However, the Court

does not accept as true threadbare recitations of the elements of
the claim and disregards legal conclusions unsupported by factual

allegations.

complaint

Iqbal,

should

556

U.S.

''contain

at

678-79.

either

allegations respecting all the

At

direct

a

minimum,

a

or

inferential

material elements

necessary to

sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory."

Fin. Sec.

Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 500 F.3d 1276, 1282-83 (11th

Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (quoting Roe v. Aware

Woman Ctr. for

Choice, Inc., 253 F.3d 678, 683 (11th Cir. 2001)).

"A

document

filed

pro

se

is

'to

be

liberally

construed,

[and] a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be
held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by

lawyers.'"
Estelle
Civ.

P.

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting

V. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)); see also Fed. R.
8(f)

("All

pleadings

shall

be

so

construed

as

to

do

substantial justice.").
Exhaustion

of

administrative

remedies

should be raised in a motion to dismiss.

is

a

matter

that

Basel v. Sec'y of Def.,

507 Fed. Appx. 873, 874 (11th Cir. 2013) (per curiam).

"[I]t is

permissible for a district court to consider facts outside of the
pleadings and resolve factual disputes so long as the factual
disputes do not decide the merits and the
sufficient opportunity to develop a record."

parties are given
Id. at 874-75.

DISCUSSION

This order addresses the limited issue of whether Plaintiff

exhausted

his

administrative

Terminals,

Atlantic

Ro-Ro,

and

remedies
APS

by

against
filing

an

GSA,

Marine

EEOC

charge

(thereby satisfactorily exhausting his administrative remedies)

against ILA.^

To answer this question, this Court previously

ordered the parties to clarify their positions on the following
factors:

(1) the similarity of the interest between the named

party and the unnamed party; (2) whether the plaintiff could have

ascertained the identity of the unnamed party at the time the
EEOC charge was filed; (3) whether the unnamed parties received
adequate notice of the charges; (4) whether the unnamed parties
have an adequate opportunity to participate in the reconciliation
process;

and

(5)

whether

the

unnamed

parties

suffered

prejudice by its exclusion from the EEOC proceedings.

actual

Dkt. No.

53 (citing DiGiro v. Pall Corp., 993 F. Supp. 1474, 1474 (M.D.
Fla. 1998)).

^Plaintiff has demonstrated that he served GSA, Marine Terminals, Atlantic RoRo, and APS, and Defendants are no longer seeking to dismiss the suit against
them on that basis.

See Dkt. Nos. 43, 44.

Accordingly,

the

parties

provided

some

additional

information.

Similarity of interests.

employers—Marine

Terminals,

members for

and

Dkt.

No.

GSA

54-1.

The record shows that the port

Atlantic

that GSA

Plaintiff

Ro-Ro,

acts for the
asserts

that

and

APS—are

signatory
GSA

board

parties.

protected

the

interests of those port employers during the grievance process

and that the grievance process in which the port employers did
participate involved the same issues as those of the EEOC charge
filed against GSA.

Dkt. No. 17.

Plaintiffs ability

to

ascertain

identities.

The

record

shows that Plaintiff sent letters addressed to each of the port

employers, demonstrating his knowledge of their identity.
No. 5.

Dkt.

It also shows that each had its own representative at his

grievance hearing and that his paychecks indicated which entity
employed him. Dkt. No. 24.
Notice to unnamed parties.

The record shows that the port

employers had actual notice of Barneman's EEOC charge against GSA

which resulted in the present litigation.

Dkt. No. 53-2, 53-3,

53-5, 53-6 {A,B,D,E)

Participation in reconciliation process.

The port employers

were not involved in the EEOC charge, but they did participate in
the grievance process, which is part of the overall dispute that

Barneman initiated and closely mirrors the one that the EEOC was
tasked with adjudicating.

Actual prejudice.

There has been no demonstration of actual

prejudice against Marine Terminals, Atlantic Ro-Ro, or APS as a
result of their not having been named in the EEOC charge.
Overall,

the

Court

determines

that,

at

least

at

this

juncture based on the information available at this time, justice
is promoted by allowing Plaintiff to include the port employers

in this present suit.
(11th Cir. 1983).

See Hamm v. Bd. of Regents, 708 F.2d 647

They knew of Barneman's grievance, knew of his

EEOC charge involving the present dispute, have interests that
were closely aligned
shown

no

process.

actual

with those of GSA, and importantly, have

prejudice

from

their

exclusion

in

the

EEOC

As a reminder, the purpose of administrative exhaustion

is to give the EEOC the first chance to resolve a dispute before
it proceeds before a court.

See Gregory v. Ga. Dep't of Human

Res., 355 F.3d 1277, 1279 (11th Cir. 2004) (quoting Evans v. U.S.
Pipe

&• Foundry

Co.,

696

F.2d

925,

929

(11th

Cir.

1993)

(The

purpose of administrative exhaustion is to give the EEOC ''the
first

opportunity

to

investigate

the

alleged

discriminatory

practices to permit it to perform its role in obtaining voluntary
compliance

and

promoting

conciliation

finds that the EEOC has done so here.

efforts.")).

The

Court

CONCLUSION

Defendants' renewed Motion to Dismiss for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies (Dkt. No. 54) is DENIED.

SO OBDEBED, this 1st day of August, 2018.

HON.'^LISA GODBEY WOOD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

SOUTHERN

A0 72A

(Rev. 8/82)

JUDGE

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA