Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino

Filing 60

OPINION and ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 55 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
BARBRIE LOGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Case No. 16-10585
Honorable Linda V. Parker

MGM GRAND DETROIT CASINO,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
This matter presently is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of this Court’s March 7, 2018 Opinion and Order granting
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. In that decision, the Court held that
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the six-month statute of limitations set forth in her
pre-employment agreement. (ECF No. 53.) Although concluding that the sixmonth limitations period would be equitably tolled during the EEOC’s 180-day
period of exclusive jurisdiction, the Court found that Plaintiff was not entitled to
equitable tolling because she filed her EEOC charge after the six-month limitations
period had expired. In her motion for reconsideration, Plaintiff contends that the
Court erred in reaching this conclusion because Michigan is a “deferral” state and

thus she had 300 days to file her EEOC charge.1 Because Plaintiff is incorrect, the
Court is denying her motion for reconsideration.
Title VII provides in relevant part:

A charge under this section shall be filed within one hundred and
eighty days after the alleged unlawful employment practice
occurred . . ., except that in a case of an unlawful employment
practice with respect to which the person aggrieved has initially
instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to
grant or seek relief from such practice or to institute criminal
proceedings with respect thereto upon receiving notice thereof, such
charge shall be filed by or on behalf of the person aggrieved within
three hundred days after the alleged unlawful employment practice
occurred, or within thirty days after receiving notice that the State or
local agency has terminated the proceedings under the State or local
law, whichever is earlier, and a copy of such charge shall be filed by
the Commission with the State or local agency.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e) (emphasis added). Thus in a state that has a state agency
which can provide a remedy for discrimination—a so called “deferral state”—the
claimant who files a claim with the state agency is given 300 days to file the

At the Court’s invitation, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration on April 17, 2018. (ECF No. 59.) In its response, Defendant
argues that Plaintiff simply is raising an issue she previously raised in her response
to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, which was rejected in Magistrate
Judge Patti’s February 12, 2018 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), and that
she also waived the issue because she failed to assert it in her objections to the
R&R. While Defendant may be correct that these are reasons for denying
Plaintiff’s motion, the Court is sensitive to Plaintiff’s pro se status and believes
that the better approach is to address the substance of her argument.
2

1

claim.2 As the italicized language above reflects, however, the claimant must have
actually instituted proceedings with the state or local agency for the 300-day period
to be applicable. See also El-Zabet v. Nissan North America, Inc., 211 F. App’x
460, 463 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that the 180-day time limit applies where the
plaintiff did not institute proceedings with a state or local agency); Gilardi v.
Schroeder, 833 F.2d 1226, 1230 (7th Cir. 1987) (explaining that the statutory
prerequisite for the extended filing period is that the complainant instituted
proceedings initially with the state agency or the EEOC files the charges with the
state agency on the complainant’s behalf); EEOC v. Dolgencorp, LLC, 196 F.
Supp. 3d 783, 799 (E.D. Tenn. 2016) (explaining that “[i]f a charge is not first filed
with the [state agency], or dual-filed with the EEOC and the [state agency]
contemporaneously . . . then the 180-day limit applies”); Houston v. Pepsico, Inc.,
No. 3:14-2050, 2016 WL 2607006, at *4 (M.D. Tenn. May 6, 2016) (same); Syed
v. Northern Kentucky Water Dist., No. 08-197, 2010 WL 1235330, at *4 (E.D. Ky.
Mar. 23, 2010) (concluding that it was proper to apply the 180-day limitations
period where the plaintiff did not first initiate proceedings with a state agency
because “simply living in a deferral state is inadequate to trigger application of the
300-day limitations period …”).

Michigan is a deferral state. See Schoneboom v. Michigan, 28 F. App’x 504, 505
(6th Cir. 2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.80 (listing Michigan Department of Civil Rights
as a certified state agency)
3

2

There is no evidence in the record reflecting that Plaintiff ever filed a charge
with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights asserting the claims at issue in this
lawsuit, much less a charge within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment
practice. Thus, the 300-day limitations period has no bearing in this case and she
fails to demonstrate a palpable defect in this Court’s decision finding her claims
are time-barred.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 30, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 30, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
Case Manager

4