Tran v. Coty Inc.

Filing 27

ORDER - 22 Motion deemed moot; 18 Motion deemed moot and granting 20 Motion to Dismiss. The clerk is directed to close these cases. Signed by Senior Judge Malcolm J. Howard on 12/13/2011. (Heath, D.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION

DINH TRAN,
Plaintiff,

5:10-CV-431-H

v.

COTY, INC.,
Defendant.

DINH TRAN,
Plaintiff,

5:11-CV-114-H

v.

COTY, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER

These

consolidated

matters

are

before

motions to dismiss filed by the defendant,
In reviewing these matters,

the

Coty,

court
Inc.

on

the

("Coty").

the court has found that these two

matters involve the same parties and the complaints in the two
matters

are

virtually

identical.

Purportedly

in

response

to

defendant's
Justice.

motions

to

dismiss,

plaintiff

filed

a

Motion

for

These matters are ripe for adjudication.

The court has carefully reviewed the matters and finds that
plaintiff's complaints should be dismissed in their entirety for
the following reasons.
I.

Discrimination Claims

First, as to any claims of discrimination, plaintiff failed
to include discrimination in his administrative charge with the
EEOC,

leaving

this

over those claims.

court

without

On the form,

subject

matter

jurisdiction

he only selected retaliation.

"Only those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge,
those

reasonably

related

to

the

original

complaint,

and

those

developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint
may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit."
Techs.
).

Applications

&

Servo

Co.,

80

F.3d

954,

963

Evans v.
(4th

Cir.

Therefore any claims of discrimination are dismissed for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II.

Retaliation Claims

A

federal

district

court

confronted

with

a

motion

to

dismiss for failure to state a claim should view the allegations
of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
See

Ibarra

V.

United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474
2

(4th Cir. 1997).

The

intent

of

12 (b) (6)

Edwards v.

complaint.
Cir.

Rule

1999)

A

surrounding

is

the

facts,

980 F.2d 943,

facts

merits

the

952

consistent

Id.

suff iciency

178 F.3d 231,

of

243

of

claim,

a

a

(4th

or

(quoting Republican

(4th Cir.

1992)).

the

Party v.

"[O]nce a claim has

it may be supported by showing any set

with

the

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
"[A]

the

Rule 12 (b) (6) motion" 'does not resolve contests

been stated adequately,
of

test

City of Goldsboro,

applicability of defenses.'"
Martin,

to

allegations
127

in

the

complaint."

S. Ct. 1955, 1969

(2007).

complaint need not 'make a case' against a defendant or

'forecast
claim."

evidence

element'

of

the

Inc.,

415 F.3d 342,

349

(4th

(quoting Iodice v.

United States,

289

2002)).

of

Chao v.

Cir.

2005)

(4th

Cir.

sufficient

to

Rivendell Woods,

Rule

Procedure provides

8

prove

the

an

Federal

F.3d 270,

Rules

"for simplicity in pleading

that

of

281

Civil

intends

to

give little more than notice to the defendant of the plaintiff's
claims

and

those

claims

Retirement
2007) .

that

insofar

Sys.

of

until
as

LA v.

after

discovery

they

rely

on

Hunter,

477

F.3d

any

challenge

Teachers'

facts."
162,

to

170

(4th

Cir.

A complaint is generally sufficient if its "'allegations

are detailed and
respond.'"
Miller,

defers

Id.

Federal

informative enough to enable
(quoting
Practice

5
and

Charles

Alan

Procedure,

3

the

Wright

§ 1215

at

defendant

to

Arthur

R.

&

193

(3d ed.

2004)).

Thus,

notice"

of

a complaint satisfies the Rules if it gives "fair

the

claim

and

"the

grounds

has

an

upon

which

it

rests."

Twombly, 127 S. Ct. at 1964.
However,

a

plaintiff

obligation

to

provide

the

grounds of his entitlement to relief with "more than labels and
conclusions."
allege

Twombly,

facts

127 S. Ct.

sufficient

speculative level,
accepted as true,
on its face,"

id.,

The complaint must

at 1965.

"to raise a

right

to relief

above

the

and "contain sufficient factual matter,

to state a claim for relief that is plausible

Ashcroft v.

Iqbal,

129 S.Ct.

1937,

1949

(2009).

Even though this court liberally construes pro se complaints,

it

is not required to "accept the legal conclusions drawn from the
facts.

Similarly,

inferences,

we

need

unreasonable

Shore Mkts.,

Inc.

v.

175, 180 (th Cir 2000)
In these

J. D.

not

accept

conclusions,
Assocs.,

or

Ltd.

as

true

unwarranted

arguments."

Eastern

Partnership,

213

F. 3d

(citations omitted)

consolidated matters,

plaintiff

claim upon which relief can be granted.

fails

to state a

His allegations do not

give fair notice of a claim which is plausible on its face.
is

difficult

numerous

from

plaintiff's

attachments

to

poorly

decipher

drafted

plaintiff's

complaints
claims

but

It
and
it

appears plaintiff is claiming retaliation in that his "problems"
at Coty started after he reported some safety concerns to the
4

EEOC and

the

North Carolina Department

became a "witness for a racial case."
allege

that

written

he

was

warnings

retaliated

against

him

of

Plaintiff then appears to

against
and

Labor and after he

by his

ultimately

employer

filing

terminating

his

employment on October 5, 2009.
Plainti f f' s
was

filed

on

charge of discrimination wi th the

October

15,

2009,

received two written warnings.

alleges
None of

only

only

has

jurisdiction

over

that

which

plaintiff

the other warnings or

the termination were alleged in the EEOC claim.
court

EEOC,

Therefore,

plaintiff's

this

allegations

regarding the first two warnings.
Plaintiff's

allegations

regarding

the

first

two

warnings

are conclusory allegations which do not state a cognizable legal
claim.

It

appears

from

plaintiff's

complaint

that

plaintiff

called Coty's hotline after receiving the first written warning,
so

that

warning

hotline call.
drafted

and

could

not

have

been

in

AS to the second warning,
it

is

difficult

for

retaliation

for

the

the complaint is poorly

this

court

to

decipher

plaintiff's argument, but it appears he may have complained of a
safety violation.
this

warning

reasonable

were,

Plaintiff does not state what the results of
but

the

court

employee would find

sees

no

allegations

that

a

this written warning materially

adverse.
5

Plaintiff's

poorly

complaints

drafted

anyclaim that is plausible on its face.

fail

to

state

These mere conclusory

allegations are not enough to survive a Rule 12(b) (6) analysis.
CONCLUSION

For the
are GRANTED,
All

other

foregoing

reasons,

defendant's motions

to dismiss

and these matters are dismissed in their entirety.
pending

motions

are

deemed

moot.

The

clerk

directed to close these cases.

V!J

This ~ day of December 2011.

Malcolm J.
ward
Senior United States District Judge
At Greenville, NC
#26

6

is