Menson v. City of Baton Rouge et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM RULING denying 20 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 20 Motion to Alter Judgment; denying 20 Motion for New Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge C. Michael Hill on 12/20/2012. (Williams, Lysandra)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
GERALD MENSON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-0131

VERSUS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HILL

CITY OF BATON ROUGE, ET AL.

BY CONSENT OF THE PARTIES

MEMORANDUM RULING ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Pending before the undersigned is the Motion for Reconsideration and/or to Alter
or Amend Judgment and/or for a New Trial filed by plaintiff, Gerald Menson
(“Menson”), on November 13, 2012. [rec. doc. 20]. By this motion, plaintiff requests
that the Court reconsider its Memorandum Ruling issued on November 8, 2012 [rec. doc.
18] on the Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss on the Basis of Prescription filed
by the City of Baton Rouge and the Department of Public Works (“the City”) [rec. doc.
7]. The City has filed opposition. [rec. doc. 22].
In the motion to dismiss, the City sought dismissal of Menson’s claims on the
grounds of prescription. The Court agreed, finding that because Menson did not file his
complaint until almost six months after the EEOC’s Right to Sue letter was issued, his
claims had prescribed.
Here, as in the opposition to the motion to dismiss, Menson argues that the letter
from the Supervisory Investigator of the EEOC, Maple T. Thomas (“Thomas”),
constituted his “right to sue” letter, and that the time for filing suit should have run from
that date. In the first paragraph of the letter that Thomas wrote to Menson, she said:

This will confirm our telephone conversation of today wherein you were
advised that the EEOC could not extend the 90 days to file a lawsuit in the
subject charge of employment discrimination. A review of agency records
shows that your dismissal and notice of rights was issued on September 6,
2011. Attached to your dismissal was a document entitled “Information
Related to Filing Suit Under the Laws Enforced by the The EEOC.” An
additional copy of those instructions is printed below.
(emphasis added). [rec. doc. 14, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20].
The Court found that Thomas had clearly confirmed in her undated letter that the
right to sue letter was issued on September 6, 2011; therefore, Thomas’ letter could not
be construed as the actual right to sue letter. Menson argues that the Court omitted the
rest of the letter, which stated as follows:
In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the
respondent(s) named in the charge within 90 days of the date you receive this
Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-day
period is over, your right to sue based on the charge referred to in this
Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult and attorney, you should do so
promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell
him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to avoid any
question that you did not act in a timely manner, it is prudent that your
lawsuit be filed within 90 days of the date this Notice was mailed to you (as
indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.
Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent
jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate State court is the general civil trial
court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide
after talking to your attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file
a “complaint” that contains a short statement of the facts of your case which
shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include any matter alleged
in the charge or, to the extent permitted by court decisions, matters like or
related to the matters alleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in
the State where the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can
be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where the
employment would have been, or where the respondent has its main office.
2

If you have simple questions, you usually can get answers from the office of
the clerk of court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to
write your complaint or make legal strategy decisions for you.
[rec. doc. 14, Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20].
This language does not change the fact that, at the outset, the letter clearly sets
forth that “your dismissal and notice of rights was issued on September 6, 2011.” This
introductory paragraph also clearly states that the next two paragraphs constitute “[a]n
additional copy” of the instructions for filing suit under the laws enforced by the EEOC.
As the Court stated in the Memorandum Ruling, the right to sue letter, and the
instructions which were repeated in Thomas’ letter, “clearly informed Menson that he
had only ninety days to act and that the ninety day period had begun to run on
September 6. Menson clearly knew that he had ninety days to sue, otherwise he would
never have requested the extension of the ninety day period from the EEOC.”
Although Menson argues that Thomas’ letter is ambiguous, the Court finds that it
is not. The record reflects that the Dismissal and Notice of Rights was issued on
September 6, 2011. [rec. doc. 14, Exhibit 17]. Menson obviously received this Notice,
as he requested an extension of the 90 day period. In both the telephone conversation
and the letter, Thomas reconfirmed to Menson that the notice of rights to sue was issued
on September 6, 2011. The first paragraph of the letter also clearly informs Menson that
“[a]n additional copy of those instructions [Information Related to Filing Suit Under the

3

Laws Enforced by the The EEOC]” was printed below, which was the next two
paragraphs to which he refers in the instant motion.
The Court finds that the letter clearly states that the two paragraphs at issue merely
constitute an additional copy of the instructions for filing suit, which Thomas included as
a courtesy to Menson. Thomas’ letter does not take the place of the right to sue letter, to
which she expressly referred in the initial paragraph (which was not in italics, unlike the
quoted portion in the remainder of the letter). Thus, the Court finds no basis to alter its
prior ruling. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 59(e).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration and/or to
Alter or Amend Judgment and/or for a New Trial [rec. doc. 20] is DENIED.
Signed December 20, 2012, at Lafayette, Louisiana.