Meriwether v. Beverly Hills Grocery and Liquor et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss [# 16 ] is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for leave to file her first amended complaint [# 24 ] is granted. The complaint is deemed filed as of today. Defendants shall file an answer no later than November 11, 2013. This case will be set for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference by separate order. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on October 23, 2013. (BRP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

MARY ELLEN MERIWETHER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BEVERLY HILLS GROCERY
AND LIQUOR, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13 CV 424 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Mary Ellen Meriwether sued her former employer, Beverly Hills
Grocery and Liquor, as well as its owners Mike Sabbar and Tim Sabbar, under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. In her pro se
complaint, Meriwether alleged that, during her employment, the defendants
subjected her to harassment, discrimination, and retaliation based on her race and
sex.
In response, the defendants moved to dismiss Meriwether’s petition for
failure to timely file. I already asked Meriwether to explain why she did not file
her federal case within 90 days of receiving an EEOC right-to-sue letter dated June
12, 2012. Meriwether stated that she never received this first right-to-sue letter
because it was sent to an incorrect address. Meriwether included documentation

supporting her contention, and I determined that she filed her federal-court petition
within the 90-day period required by law. See Mem. & Order, dated May 29, 2013
(Doc. No. 7); see also Baur v. Crum, 882 F. Supp. 2d 785, 799 (E.D. Pa. 2012)
(suit permitted where right-to-sue letter was sent to incorrect address); Hawthorne
v. Reily Foods Co., 01CV1405, 2001 WL 902596, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 9, 2001)
(same).
In addition, the defendants have moved to dismiss Meriwether’s Title VII
termination and failure-to-promote claims and all of her race-related claims, as
well as all claims against the individual defendants, for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies. Meriwether does not object to dismissing these claims.
In fact, Meriwether – now represented by counsel – has moved to file an amended
complaint without these claims. The defendants have not responded to that
motion.
As such, I will grant Meriwether’s motion to amend her complaint and deny
the defendants’ motion to dismiss. I will deny part A of defendants’ motion
because I have already found this action was timely filed. I will deny as moot parts
B, C, and D of the motion because plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed the claims to
which the defendants object.
Accordingly,
–2–

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants’ motion to dismiss [#16] is
denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to file her
first amended complaint [#24] is granted. The complaint is deemed filed as of
today. Defendants shall file an answer no later than November 11, 2013.
This case will be set for a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference by separate order.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 23rd day of October, 2013.

–3–