Munion v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: (1) Defendant TMMK's Motion to Dismiss 15 is GRANTED. (2) Upon Court's own motion, Plaintiff Munion shall SHOW CAUSE w/in 10 DAYS why these same claims against Defendant Kelly Services should not be dismissed for reasons stated above. Failure to file a response will result in dismissal of these claims without further delay. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 7/28/2016.(STC)cc: COR,Plt
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION at LEXINGTON
JUSTIN LEE MUNION,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOYOTA MOTOR MANUFACTURING
KENTUCKY and KELLY SERVICES,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Case No.
16-CV-105-JMH
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
***
This matter is before the Court upon Defendant Toyota Motor
Manufacturing
Kentucky’s
(“TMMK”)
Motion
to
Dismiss
[DE
15]
Plaintiff Munion’s claims for failure to hire, retaliation, and
filing
a
false
police
report
pursuant
to
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.
On July 6, 2016,
the Court ordered Plaintiff Munion to show cause why the Motion
to Dismiss should not be granted for the reasons set forth in
the motion and the well-articulated memorandum of law in support
of the motion [DE 21].
Munion, proceeding pro se, filed a
Response to the order to show cause, objecting to the Motion to
Dismiss [DE 26], and Defendant has filed a Reply [DE 28] in
further
support
of
its
Motion.
The
Court
has
carefully
considered the arguments presented by the parties and concludes
that Plaintiff’s claims for failure to hire, retaliation, and
1
filing
a
false
police
report
must
be
dismissed
for
lack
of
subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
I.
When subject matter jurisdiction is challenged under Rule
12(b)(1), “the plaintiff has the burden of proving jurisdiction
to survive the motion.” Rogers v. Stratton Indus. Inc., 798 F.2d
913,
915
(6th
categorized
Cir.
as
1986).
either
a
Motions
facial
under
attack
or
Rule
a
12(b)(1)
factual
“are
attack.”
McCormick v. Miami Univ., 693 F.3d 654, 658 (6th Cir. 2012).
“Under a facial attack, all of the allegations in the complaint
must be taken as true.... Under a factual attack, however, the
court can actually weigh evidence to confirm the existence of
the
factual
predicates
for
subject-matter
jurisdiction.”
Id.
(quoting Carrier Corp. v. Outokumpu Oyj, 673 F.3d 430, 440 (6th
Cir.
2012).
jurisdiction
In
of
this
the
facial
Court,
attack
the
on
the
undersigned
subject
as
matter
taken
all
allegations in the Complaint as true.
II.
In Munion’s Notice of Charge of Discrimination filed with
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), he claimed
that he, a white male, was treated less favorably by “Robert
Jones, Group Leader, African America” [sic], than white female
employees when “there was an accident on the way to work[] that
caused many employees to be late” and he “was the only one
2
written up and terminated for declining to sign the write up.”
[DE 15-2 at 3, Page ID#: 75.]
There is no mention of a failure
to hire, retaliation, or a claim arising out of a false police
report in the Charge of Discrimination.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff avers that his employment with
Defendants TMMK and Kelly Services was wrongfully terminated,
that Defendants wrongfully failed to hire him when they proposed
postponing his hire date at TMMK, and that Defendants somehow
retaliated against him, all in violation of Title VII of the
Civil
Rights
November
Act
13,
discrimination
of
1964,
42
2014.
He
on
basis
the
U.S.C.
avers
of
§§
that
his
he
race
2000e,
and
seq.,
on
subjected
was
et
to
gender
or
sex
because his group leader treated a white female better than him
when he was written up.
He also avers that he was subjected to
discrimination when asked by his representative with Defendant
Kelly and his group leader at TMMK to sign a write-up that would
postpone his TMMK hire date, only to be asked to leave when he
declined to do so, at which time someone “called the police and
filed a false police report that I was suicidal.”
[DE 1 at 6,
Page ID#: 6.]
In its Motion to Dismiss, TMMK argues that Plaintiff did
not satisfy the administrative prerequisite under Title VII with
respect to
his
claims
for
failure
filing a false police report.
to
hire,
retaliation,
and
Because these claims were not
3
included in his EEOC charge, TMMK reasons that the Court does
not have jurisdiction over these matters.
The Court agrees.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1 (2006) (permitting civil suit by
the “person claiming to be aggrieved” after filing of a charge
with
the
EEOC
and
upon
receipt
of
a
right-to-sue
letter);
Albeita v. TransAmerica Mailings, Inc., 159 F.3d 246, 254 (6th
Cir. 1998) (citing Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540,
544-45 (6th Cir. 1991)) (“Federal courts do not have subject
matter jurisdiction to hear Title VII claims unless the claimant
explicitly files the claim in an EEOC charge or the claim can
reasonably
be
“Retaliation
expected
claims
to
are
grow
out
generally
of
the
excepted
EEOC
from
charge.”).
this
filing
requirement because they usually arise after the filing of the
EEOC charge. However, this exception to the filing requirement
does
not
occurred
apply
before
to
retaliation
the
EEOC
claims
charge
was
based
on
filed.
conduct
Id.
that
(internal
citations omitted).
In
his
Response
to
the
Court’s
Order
to
show
cause,
Plaintiff raises no argument with respect to the dismissal of
his claims concerning failure to hire or retaliation.
Munion
has, however, argued that his claim arising out of the alleged
filing of a false police report should not be dismissed because
Toyota did not inform the EEOC that it made a false police
report during the course of the EEOC investigation.
4
Further, he
argues that it should not be dismissed because he, even though
he did not list it in his Charge of Discrimination, he was told
by an investigator during the course of the EEOC investigation
that that the EEOC did not handle such matters.
Whether or not it would qualify as the basis of a Title VII
discrimination claim suitable for investigation by the EEOC is
not before the Court today.
whether
Munion
satisfied
The Court is concerned only with
the
administrative
requirement
of
filing a charge which included it so that he might ask this
Court for relief on that issue under Title VII.
The Court can
fathom no reason that TMMK’s alleged failure to advise the EEOC
that it made a police report or Plaintiff’s conversation with an
EEOC investigator well after his Charge of Discrimination was
filed should excuse his failure to include something that he
wished to claim in his Charge.
Neither of these arguments are
sufficient to persuade the Court that dismissal of these claims
is not appropriate.
III.
Plaintiff did not complain of retaliation, failure to hire
him as a full-time employee, or allegations arising out of a
false police report when he filed his Charge of Discrimination
with the EEOC.
He does not claim retaliation based on actions
which occurred after the Charge was filed.
Nor were any of
these claims reasonably expected to grow out of the EEOC Charge
5
that he actually filed. Thus, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over these claims, and they are dismissed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:
(1)
that Defendant TMMK’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 15] is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
(2) that, upon the Court’s own motion, Plaintiff Munion
shall SHOW CAUSE within TEN (10) DAYS of entry of this order why
these same claims against Defendant Kelly Services should not be
dismissed
for
the
reasons
stated
above.
Failure
to
file
a
response will result in the dismissal of these claims without
further delay.
This the 28th day of July, 2016.
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?