McFarland v. Teamsters Local 688

Filing 21

OPINION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, [Doc. No. 13], is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed. 13 Signed by District Judge Henry E. Autrey on 1/29/14. (CLA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JONATHAN McFARLAND,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 688,
Defendants.

Case No. 4:12CV725 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant
to F.R.C.P 12(b)(6), [Doc. No. 13]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons
set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss is granted.
Facts and Background
Plaintiff alleges a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, based on discrimination which he claims occurred between
December, 2006 and July, 2007. Although Plaintiff checked the “yes” box on his
pro se form that he filed a charge of discrimination against the defendant(s) with
the EEOC, Plaintiff fails to set forth the date filed on the complaint form.
Defendant moves to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.
Discussion

When ruling on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim, the Court may consider matters of public
record, and the consideration of those matters does not convert the motion into one
for summary judgment. Porous Media Corp. V. Pall Corp, 186 F.3d 1077, 1079
(8th Cir. 1999). EEOC charges are matters of public record. Faibisch v. Univ. of
Minn., 304 F.3d 797, 802-03 (8th Cir. 2002); Blackley v. Schlumberger
Technology Corp., 648 F.3d 921, 931 (8th Cir. 2011). Defendant has submitted
the FOIA response letter establishes that Plaintiff did not file an EEOC charge
against Defendant Union.
“Before bringing a Title VII action, a plaintiff must file a charge with the
EEOC within 300 days of the event giving rise to the cause of action.” Klein v.
McGowan, 198 F.3d 705, 709 (8th Cir .1999) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)).
“The timely filing of a charge of discrimination with the EEOC is a prerequisite to
court action under Title VII.” Greene v. Carter Carburetor Co., 532 F.2d 125, 126
(8th Cir.1976). Thus, “as a general rule, a complainant must file a charge against a
party with the EEOC before she can sue that party under Title VII. See, e.g.,
EEOC v. McLean Trucking Co., 525 F.2d 1007, 1011 (6th Cir.1975); Evans v.
Sheraton Park Hotel, 503 F.2d 177, 181 (D.C.Cir.1974); Williams v. General
Foods Corp., 492 F.2d 399, 404 (7th Cir.1974).” Sedlacek v. Hach 752 F.2d 333,
-2-

336 (8th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff has failed to allege and set out in his Complaint that
he filed an EEOC charge against Defendant. As such, his Complaint fails to state
a claim for relief.1
Conclusion
Plaintiff has failed to allege, and Defendant has established, through judicial
notice of public records that Plaintiff failed to file a charge of discrimination with
the EEOC against Defendant Union.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint, [Doc. No. 13], is granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed.
Dated this 29th day of January, 2014.

_______________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

In that the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to file an EEOC charge, the Court need not
address Defendant’s alternative arguments that Plaintiff failed to obtain a “right to sue” letter and
that the matter is time barred, both of which appear to be valid arguments.
-3-