Raynor v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 5 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 6 Motion for Hearing. Plaintiff is ORDERED to furnish the Court with the EEOC Charge of Discrimination on or before June 22, 2017. Failure to furnish the Court with the EEOC Charge may result in dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 6/8/17. (clc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. 3:17-cv-00160-FDW-DSC
E. RAY RAYNOR,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
G4S SECURE SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff’s
Complaint (Doc. Nos. 4, 5) and Motion for Hearing (Doc. No. 6). In light of Plaintiff’s failure to
file his EEOC Charge of Discrimination with the Court, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss and
Motion for Hearing are DENIED as MOOT, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to furnish the Court with
the EEOC Charge of Discrimination so the Court may determine the scope of its subject matter
jurisdiction.
A plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC
before filing suit under Title VII because the scope of the court’s subject matter jurisdiction is
limited by the contents of the charge. Mercer v. PHH Corp., 641 Fed. Appx. 233, 238 (4th Cir.
2016); see also Syndor v. Fairfax Cnty., 681 F.3d 591 (4th Cir. 2012). Accordingly, claims that
fall outside the scope of the charge are procedurally barred. Balas v. Huntington Ingalls Indus.,
Inc., 711 F.3d 401, 408 (4th Cir. 2013). Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1), a Title VII claim is also
time-barred if a plaintiff files his EEOC Charge of Discrimination more than 180 days “after the
alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” Benedetti v. Computer Scis. Corp., 187 F.3d
628 (4th Cir. 1999); see also Whitaker v. Nash Cty., 504 F. App'x 237, 240 (4th Cir. 2013) (“[A]

failure by the plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies concerning a Title VII claim deprives
the federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.” (quoting Jones v. Calvert Grp.,
Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009))).
Before going forward with the review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, this Court will require
Plaintiff to furnish the Court with the EEOC Notice of Charge so that the Court may determine the
scope of this lawsuit, and in turn, its subject matter jurisdiction. See Evans v. Techs. Applications
& Serv. Co., 80 F.3d 954, 962-63 (4th Cir. 1996) (“The allegations contained in the administrative
charge of discrimination [before the EEOC] generally operate to limit the scope of any subsequent
judicial complaint.”).
In sum, Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 4, 5) and Motion for Hearing (Doc.
No. 6) are DENIED as MOOT, and Plaintiff is ORDERED to furnish the Court with the EEOC
Charge of Discrimination on or before June 22, 2017. Failure to furnish the Court with the
EEOC Charge may result in dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: June 8, 2017