Kirkland v. State of Mississippi et al
Filing
27
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting 13 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 12/17/12 (LWE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
ANGELA KIRKLAND
PLAINTIFF
VS.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12CV512TSL-MTP
HINDS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SERVICES AND MICHAEL
MILLER
DEFENDANTS
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the court on the motion of defendant
Mississippi Department of Human Services (MDHS), erroneously
designated “Hinds County Department of Human Services”, for
judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff Angela Kirkland opposes the
motion, and the court, having considered the parties’ memoranda,
concludes that the motion should be granted.
Plaintiff filed suit against defendants MDHS and Michael
Miller on July 20, 2012, contending that while she was employed by
MDHS, she was subject to sexual harassment/hostile work
environment, sex discrimination and retaliation, all caused by
defendant Michael Miller, the Director of the Hinds County
Department of Human Services.
According to the complaint,1 during
her two-year tenure with MDHS, she “experienced, observed, and
1
On October 30, 2012, the court granted plaintiff leave
to amend her complaint so as to state a claim for sexual
harassment against Miller in his individual capacity. The amended
complaint was filed on November 6, 2012 and did not alter the
substance of the claims against MDHS.
heard sexually harassing remarks and actions by Michael W. Miller”
and after she gave a statement against Miller and in support of a
co-worker that Miller was sexually harassing, Miller retaliated
against her.
Plaintiff alleges that she was ultimately terminated
on June 19, 2011 based on false charges that she participated in
food stamp fraud.
On this factual basis, the complaint purports
to state claims against defendants under both Title VII and 28
U.S.C. § 1983 and seeks compensatory as well as punitive damages.
By its motion, MDHS urges that dismissal of the Title VII
claims is required inasmuch as Kirkland failed to file a timely
charge of discrimination with the EEOC.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
5(e)(1) (Title VII claimant must file charge of discrimination
within 180 days after “alleged unlawful employment practice
occurred” or that time frame serves as statute of limitations for
such claims).2
Specifically, MDHS points out that the Charge of
2
In its motion, MDHS makes two additional, and plainly
meritorious arguments, which were unaddressed and apparently
conceded by plaintiff. First, it points out that as it is a state
agency, the Eleventh Amendment bars any putative claim under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. See Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651, 662–663, 94
S. Ct. 1347, 1355, 39 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1974) (holding that “an
unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts
by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State”); see
also Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.,
506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S. Ct. 684, 687, 121 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1993)
(recognizing that Eleventh Amendment bar extends to State and
agencies acting under its control, “arms of the state”); Carter v.
Mississippi Dept. of Human Servs., Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-190
HTW-JCS, at *2 (S.D. Miss. September 29, 2006) (finding that MDHS
was a state agency entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity).
Secondly, the State is not subject to punitive damages under
either Title VII or § 1983. See Oden v. Oktibbeha County, Miss.,
2
Discrimination which plaintiff has appended to the complaint was
not filed until April 25, 2012, more than 310 days after her June
19, 2011 termination and thus, is untimely.
For her part, plaintiff contends that because she has been
diligent in pursuing her rights, exceptional circumstances warrant
equitable tolling of the administrative limitations period for her
claims.
See Granger v. Aaron’s Inc., 636 F.3d 708, 711 (5th Cir.
2011) (stating “filing a timely charge of discrimination with the
EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal
court, but a requirement, that like a statute of limitations, is
subject . . . equitable tolling,” and concluding that equitable
tolling may be available where plaintiff has exercised due
diligence in actively pursuing judicial remedies, a relevant
consideration of which is whether plaintiff took steps which are
recognized as important by statute before the end of the
limitations period) (internal citations omitted).
Plaintiff
offers the following in support of equitable tolling:
She followed internal procedures regarding filing
complaints, she participated with the internal
investigation into Miller’s sexual misconduct, and then
she filed a Charge with the EEOC after she was
wrongfully terminated.
246 F.3d 458, 466 (5th Cir. 2001) (stating that Title VII precludes
award of punitive damages against governmental entity); City of
Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 101 S. Ct. 2748, 69
L. Ed. 2d 616 (1981) (concluding that punitive damages are
unavailable for § 1983 claims against governmental entities).
3
Plaintiff’s equitable tolling argument offers no explanation as to
why the charge was not timely filed.
Further, contrary to
plaintiff’s assertion otherwise, there is absolutely no basis for
a conclusion that she took steps recognized as important by the
statute within the limitations period so as to warrant equitable
tolling.
Accordingly, MDHS’s motion to dismiss will be granted.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that MDHS’s motion to
dismiss is granted.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with Rule
58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of December, 2012
/s/ Tom S. Lee
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?