Robinson v. Voith Industrial Services, Inc.

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Judge John G. Heyburn, II on 4/30/2013 re 7 Motion to Dismiss. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's motion for summary judgment is SUSTAINED and Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. cc: Gary Robinson, Sr., Counsel (CDF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-275-H
GARY B. ROBINSON, SR.

PLAINTIFF

v.
VOITH INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.

DEFENDANT
.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This is a discrimination case brought by Plaintiff, Gary B. Robinson, Sr., against his
employer and Defendant, Voith Industrial Services, Inc. (“Voith”). Plaintiff alleges claims for
racial discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Voith has moved to dismiss both claims on the
grounds that (1) Voith is not subject to suit under the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) Robinson
failed to follow the administrative requirements of filing his claim first with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Both arguments are fairly straightforward
and well taken.
The Fourteenth Amendment protects citizens from discrimination by a “state actor.”
Cmtys. for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Ath. Ass’n, 459 F.3d 676, 691 (6th Circ. 2006). Voith is a
privately-held corporation with no government affiliation. Therefore, it does not qualify as a
state actor for purposes of Fourteenth Amendment claims. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Fourteenth
Amendment Claim must be dismissed.
Before bringing a Title VII claim in federal court, a litigant must raise the claim in a
discrimination charge filed with the EEOC. Randolph v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 453 F.3d

724, 731 (6th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff has neither asserted that he filed any charge with the EEOC or
the Michigan Department of Civil Rights nor has he put forth any evidence of such a charge.
Plaintiff has said that he filed claims with the National Labor Relations Board. However,
whatever the claims filed with the NLRB, those do not qualify as administrative prerequisite to
filing a Title VII claim in federal court. Because Plaintiff has not shown that he has complied
with the administrative requirements for his Title VII action, it must also be dismissed.
The Court is well aware that pro se litigants should be given some leeway in their
pleadings. However, the requirement of asserting claims against a proper defendant under the
United States Constitution and for following required administrative prerequisites under Title
VII are not merely pleading irregularities. They are statutory requirements. The Court has given
Plaintiff an opportunity to respond to the deficiencies and he has been unable to do so.
Moreover, it does appear that the real substance of Plaintiff’s claims are those which he is
properly pursuing before the NLRB.
Being otherwise sufficiently advised,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is
SUSTAINED and Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
This is a final and appealable order.

April 30, 2013

cc:

Gary B. Robinson, Sr., Pro Se
Counsel of Record