Dumas v. Baldwin House Management et al

Filing 17

ORDER granting 3 defendants' Motion to Dismiss; denying 10 Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 11 Motion to Dismiss motion to dismiss and for accomodations 12 Signed by District Judge George Caram Steeh. (MBea) (Main Document 17 replaced on 2/20/2014) (MBea).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

WILLIE MAE DUMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 13-CV-14438
HON. GEORGE CARAM STEEH

vs.
BALDWIN HOUSE MANAGEMENT
d/b/a AMERICAN HOUSE
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, L.L.C.,
et al.,
Defendants.
_______________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. # 3)
and DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL (DOC. # 10); TO DISMISS DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS (DOC. # 11); AND FOR ACCOMMODATIONS (DOC. # 12)
Plaintiff Willie Dumas filed a pro se complaint of employment discrimination on
November 23, 2013, against her former employer and several co-workers. Defendants
have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting that plaintiff’s complaint was not
timely filed. Additionally, defendants assert that the individual defendants cannot face
liability under Title VII. In response, plaintiff asserts that defendants argued for
dismissal of only her Title VII claims, and did not “raise a defense against any of my
state claims,” or “my other federal claims (including 42 USC 1981 and 42 USC 1985).”
Plaintiff’s Response Brf. at 1.
Plaintiff’s form complaint specifically states that her “action is brought pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...for employment discrimination.” On the second
page of the form, the plaintiff checked boxes indicating that she filed the complaint
-1-

within the 90 day period after receiving her right to sue letter from the EEOC and that
the defendants’ conduct was discriminatory based upon both “race” and “ADA-defined
disability.” She then wrote in the next section that “[i]f relief is not granted, I will be
irreparably denied rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or the
Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.” In her attached “Statement of Facts,” after numerous
pages of factual allegations, beginning with her alleged reports to her supervisor of
“abusive behavior toward the elderly” by co-workers at American House, plaintiff simply
alleged that “the defendant violated State and Federal Law....”
Defendants correctly assert that plaintiff failed to file her November 2013
complaint within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC’s Dismissal and Notice of Rights, which
was issued on October 5, 2012. That notice admonished that, as set forth in 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000-e-5(f)(1), “[y]our lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this
notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost.” See Exhibit 3 to
Defendant’s Brf. While plaintiff apparently attempts to depict a 2013 complaint she filed
in the Eastern District of Michigan against Judge Farah of the Genesee County Circuit
Court (and none of the defendants in this action) as an “administrative action” tolling the
90 day limitations period, it serves neither purpose. Accordingly, plaintiff’s federal
claims are hereby DISMISSED as untimely.1

1

This analysis applies to any Title VII, ADA, or ADEA claims plaintiff alleged in
her complaint; to the extent plaintiff contends that she has brought federal claims under
42 U.S.C.§§ 1981 and 1985, such claims are simply not a part of the allegations–or
even captions–in her complaint. The court also notes the defendants correctly assert
that the individuals named in plaintiff’s complaint cannot face individual liability under
Title VII and grants dismissal of the individual claims on this basis as well.
-2-

To the extent the complaint states any claims under Michigan law, the court
declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims, and they are hereby
DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s ex-parte motions (1) “for
accommodations;” (2) “to dismiss defendant’s motion to dismiss;” and (3) “for
appointment of counsel or submission of pro se litigant case to pro bono counsel” are
hereby DENIED.
Judgment will enter for defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 20, 2014
s/George Caram Steeh
GEORGE CARAM STEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Copies of this Order were served upon attorneys of record on
February 20, 2014, by electronic and/or ordinary mail and also
on WillieMae Dumas, 2615 Martin L. King Avenue,
Flint, MI 48505-4941.
s/Barbara Radke
Deputy Clerk

-3-