Joseph, Jr. v. People Ready

Filing 13

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Supplement the Records AND 12 Motion to Supplement the Records Motion for Clarifications/Ordered. Plaintiff shall have an additional seven (7) days from the date of this Order to file the following documentation into the record in this matter. Plaintiff is hereby NOTIFIED that failure to comply with this Order may result in a recommendation that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes on 05/18/2017. (ELW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

ALCY JOSEPH, JR.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 17-124-JWD-EWD

PEOPLE READY, ET AL.
ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Supplement the Records1 and a Motion for
Clarification’s/Ordered,2 both filed by plaintiff Alcy Joseph, Jr. On April 6, 2017, the undersigned
conducted a Spears hearing in this matter.3 As a result of the Spears hearing, Plaintiff was ordered
to file into the record in this matter the following documentation: (1) Notice of Right to Sue from
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) related to the claims raised in his
Complaint;4 and (2) the contract that forms the basis of his breach of contract claim against the
Defendants.5 The documentation was requested to permit the undersigned to evaluate whether the
Plaintiff’s action states a claim on which relief may be granted or whether the action should be
dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Plaintiff was given 30 days in which to supplement
the record with the foregoing documentation.
On April 24, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Supplement the Records,6 seeking to file the
following documents into the record in this case: (1) results of a Google search of the phrase
“federal minimum wage for contractors;”7 and (2) a December 13, 2016 letter from the EEOC to

1

R. Doc. 10.
R. Doc. 12.
3
R. Doc. 9.
4
R. Doc. 1.
5
R. Doc. 9 at 4.
6
R. Doc. 10.
7
R. Doc. 10-1 at 1.
2

Plaintiff acknowledging receipt of his charge of employment discrimination.8 Because Plaintiff
failed to comply with the Court’s April 6, 2017 Order,9 the Court issued a second Order on April
27, 2017 giving Plaintiff additional time to file the requested documentation into the record.10
In response to the Court’s April 27, 2017 Order, Plaintiff filed a Motion for
Clarification’s/Ordered on May 8, 2017.11 In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks to supplement the record
with the documentation previously requested from the Court, but failed to attach any such
documentation.12 Plaintiff also appears to be seeking an order from this Court requiring defendant
People Ready to provide him with a copy of the contract that forms the basis of his breach of
contract claim in this matter.13 As such, Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s April 27,
2017 Order.14
In the original Complaint, Plaintiff appears to allege claims under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Genetic Information
Non-Discrimination Act (“GINA”), or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).15
Although pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by
lawyers, employment discrimination plaintiffs must exhaust their administrative remedies before
pursuing claims in federal court. Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378–79 (5th Cir.
2002 (quoting Miller v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981)). The Fifth Circuit has
explained that, “Exhaustion occurs when an individual files a timely complaint with the EEOC
and receives a statutory notice of right to sue.” Taylor, 296 F.3d at 379 (citing Dao v. Auchan

8

R. Doc. 10-1 at 2-3.
R. Doc. 9.
10
R. Doc. 11.
11
R. Doc. 12.
12
R. Doc. 12 at 1.
13
R. Doc. 12 at 2-3. Although the Court granted Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis, defendant People
Ready has not yet been served with a copy of the Complaint. (R. Docs. 2, 3, 4).
14
R. Doc. 11.
15
R. Doc. 1 at 3.
9

2

Hypermarket, 96 F.3d 787, 788-899 (5th Cir. 1996)). Further, “Title VII provides that claimants
have ninety days to file a civil action after receipt of such a notice from the EEOC.” Taylor, 296
F.3d at 379 (citing Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Miss., 674 F.2d 379, 381 (5th Cir. 1982))
(emphasis in original).
During the Spears hearing on April 6, 2017, Plaintiff stated that he has received a Notice
of Right to Sue from the EEOC, but that it has not been made a part of the record, nor are there
any allegations in the Complaint regarding when that Notice was received.16 Based on the
foregoing case law, the Court has requested that Plaintiff file into the record in this matter a copy
of the Notice of Right to Sue that he received from the EEOC related to his claims in this matter.17
The Court has also requested that Plaintiff file into the record in this matter the contract
that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s state law breach of contract claim against the Defendants.18
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) provides the following:
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other
paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating
it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the
person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an
inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such
as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase
the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are
warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for
extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for
establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary
support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the
evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably
based on belief or a lack of information.
16

R. Doc. 9 at 3.
R. Doc. 9 at 4.
18
R. Doc. 9 at 4.
17

3

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Thus, by alleging a breach of contract claim in the Complaint, Plaintiff has
represented to the Court that there is evidentiary support for his claim in the form of a written or
oral contract of employment. If Plaintiff is asserting that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over his state law breach of contract claim, Plaintiff must provide the Court with a copy of the
written employment contract or specify that the contract was oral. If Plaintiff had an oral
employment contract, Plaintiff must specify the terms of the contract.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement the Records19 and
Motion for Clarification’s/Ordered20 are DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an additional seven (7) days from
the date of this Order to file the following documentation into the record in this matter: (1) Notice
of Right to Sue from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission related to the claims raised
in the Complaint;21 and (2) the contract that forms the basis of Plaintiffs breach of contract claim
against the Defendants. If Plaintiff’s employment contract that forms the basis for his breach of
contract claims in this matter is an oral contract, Plaintiff shall specify that fact, as well as the
terms of the oral contract, when supplementing the record.
Plaintiff is hereby NOTIFIED that failure to comply with this Order may result in a
recommendation that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 18, 2017.

S
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19

R. Doc. 10.
R. Doc. 12.
21
R. Doc. 1.
20

4