Munion v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky et al

Filing 36

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: For all of the reasons stated in the Court's earlier order dismissing these claims against Toyota Motor Manufacturing Kentucky 30 and as stated above, Plaintiff's claims for failure to hire, retaliation, and filing a false police report against Defendant Kelly Services are DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Joseph M. Hood on 8/8/2016.(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

***
Defendant has filed a Response to this Court’s July 28,
2016,

Order

requiring

him

to

show

cause

[DE

30,

34]

why

Plaintiff’s claims for failure to hire, retaliation, and filing
a false police report against Defendant Kelly Services should
not be dismissed.

Plaintiff raises no argument with respect to

the dismissal of his claims for failure to hire or retaliation.
With respect to his claim that Kelly Services, Inc., harmed him
by filing a false police report, he posits that this Court has
jurisdiction over the claim because he did raise this matter
before the EEOC in his intake questionnaire, which he has now
provided

to

the

Court

as

an

exhibit

to

his

response.

Nonetheless, such a claim – as a standalone matter – was not
pursued through the process available to him via the EEOC and
did

not

appear

in

the

Notice

of

Charge

of

Discrimination.

Perhaps this is because it would not qualify, alone, as the
1

basis

of

a

Title

VII

discrimination

claim

suitable

for

investigation by the EEOC. Clearly, Plaintiff Munion was upset
by the call to police indicating that he might be suicidal, but
the Court surmises that he did not persuade the EEOC upon intake
that

he

could

properly

pursue

some

sort

of

variant

on

a

malicious prosecution claim or a claim for misuse of public
resources based upon it under Title VII.

As the matter is

presented to this Court, the undersigned is concerned only with
whether

Munion

satisfied

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.
included

in

the

Charge,

and

dismissal

of

It was not

this

claim

is

appropriate.
For all of the reasons stated in the Court’s earlier order
dismissing

these

claims

against

Toyota

Motor

Manufacturing

Kentucky [DE 30] and as stated above, Plaintiff’s claims for
failure to hire, retaliation, and filing a false police report
against Defendant Kelly Services are DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This the 8th day of August, 2016.

2