Daggett v. Donahue et al

Filing 22

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's 18 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (MWil)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
DONNETTA DAGGETT,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action No. 14-CV-13368
HON. BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN

PATRICK DONAHUE,
Postmaster General,
Defendant.
______________________/
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS
This matter is presently before the Court on defendant’s motion to dismiss certain
claims [docket entry 18]. Plaintiff has filed a response. Pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f)(2), the
Court shall decide this motion without a hearing.
This is an employment discrimination case. Plaintiff, who is African American,
alleges that she was discharged from her job as a mail processor after filing a complaint with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding allegedly unfair treatment by a
white supervisor, in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She apparently intends to
assert claims for
Racial Discrimination, Retaliation, Hostile Work Environment,
Denial of Due Process, Violations in Collective Bargaining
Agreement, Disparate Treatment, Failure to Follow Policies and
Procedures, Inconsistent Reasoning, Failure to Investigate Internal
Complaint/Remedy, Misinformation about EEOC process, Issuing a
Biased Final Agency Decision, Delaying Justice, Wrongful
Termination, Defamation, Harassment, Due to my protected activity.
Compl. at 1. For relief, plaintiff seeks reinstatement, back pay, $1.5 million in compensatory
damages, $1.5 million in punitive damages, and “injunctive relief.”

Defendant seeks dismissal of all of plaintiff’s claims, except her claim for retaliation,
for lack of jurisdiction or for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6). Defendant notes that plaintiff asserted only a retaliation claim in her EEOC complaint
and argues that she has therefore not exhausted her administrative remedies as to any other
employment-related claims. Defendant also argues that plaintiff’s defamation claim is barred by the
Federal Tort Claims Act, which specifically exempts this tort, and that her remaining claims are not
sufficiently alleged under the pleading standards of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell
Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Plaintiff’s one-paragraph response to defendant’s motion is that
[i]n December 2012 I filed a retaliation claim against the agency
because I had a pending EEOC case. For that reason my claim should
have been taken serious. I participated in mediation for both cases.
It became clear from the beginning that no one in the agency wanted
to listen or investigate my claim. I was treated differently for
complaining. Because I am pro se I do not want to be a burden to the
court and I want a resolution but I also want Justice for the way I was
treated. I am asking the court to not dismiss the Hostile Work
Environment, Disparate Treatment, Harassment and Racial
Discrimination Claims.
Pl.’s Resp. at 3.
Plaintiff has not addressed any of the arguments raised in defendant’s motion.
Although pro se complaints are treated more leniently than those drafted by lawyers, see, e.g.,
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), all litigants must still follow the applicable court rules. See
Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339 (6th Cir.1988); Evans v. Mercedes Benz Fin. Servs., LLC, 2011
WL 2936198, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 21, 2011) (“a pro se plaintiff must comply with basic pleading
requirements . . . [m]eaning, a plaintiff still must allege a set of facts that would establish the
material elements of a claim”).
2

By failing to respond to defendant’s arguments, plaintiff concedes that there is no
response to be made. The Court has independently reviewed the complaint and finds merit in all of
defendant’s arguments. Plaintiff’s employment-related claims for hostile work environment,
disparate treatment, harassment, and race discrimination are barred because they were not first
presented to the EEOC. The defamation claim is barred by sovereign immunity. And all claims,
except the retaliation claim that was presented to the EEOC, fail because they are not sufficiently
alleged under Iqbal and Twombly. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that defendant’s motion for partial dismissal is granted. All of
plaintiff’s claims are dismissed except her claim that defendant retaliated against her for filing an
EEOC complaint.

Dated: March 3, 2015

s/Bernard A. Friedman
BERNARD A. FRIEDMAN
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on March 3,
2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail.
s/Michael Williams
Substitute Case Manager
For Senior U.S. District Judge Bernard A. Friedman

3