Harris v. American Airlines, Inc.

Filing 9

ORDER granting 2 Motion to Dismiss, and all Plaintiffs claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA that arose prior to October 9, 2015 are DISMISSED. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 7/6/2017. (eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00280-GCM
LATANYA HARRIS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [Doc. No. 2]. Plaintiff has filed a response and
Defendant has elected not to file a reply. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for disposition.
I.

Background

On April 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging race, age, and
disability discrimination and retaliation by her employer, Defendant. Compl. at 35. The EEOC
then issued a dismissal and notice of rights on January 25, 2017. Compl. at 36. Plaintiff promptly
filed this lawsuit on May 12, 2017, alleging a number of claims against Defendant. Specifically,
Racial Discrimination and Retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) and 42
U.S.C. § 1981, Age Discrimination & Retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (“ADEA”), Disability Discrimination and Retaliation under the American with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”), and Violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Defendant
responded by removing the case to this Court under federal question jurisdiction and filing this
Motion to Dismiss.

II.

Standard of Review

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,
accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting from Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 554, 570 (2007)). “A claim
has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). However, “[a] court is not required to accept [t]hreadbare recitals of the elements
of a cause of action supported by mere conclusory statements. Id.
III.

Discussion

Claims under Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA have certain administrative remedies that
must be exhausted before any claimant can bring suit. Under Title VII, a claimant has 180 days
from the date of the alleged misconduct to report the issue to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) and then, the EEOC may give the claimant a letter to sue. 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f) (2012). At that point, a suit can be brought. Id. If the issue is not reported to the EEOC
within that timeframe, claimant loses all right to sue under that statute. See, e.g., Jones v. Calvert
Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009). The ADEA and ADA enforcement provisions are
set up identically. 29 U.S.C. § 626(c) (2012) (stating the requirements to sue under the ADEA);
42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (2012) (stating the requirements to sue under the ADA). And, like Title VII
claims, failure to follow these procedures will bar the claimant from bringing suit. See, e.g., Jones,
551 F.3d at 301 (explaining that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a bar to bringing suit
under the ADEA); See, e.g., Sydnor v. Fairfax County, Va., 681 F.3d 591, 593 (4th Cir. 2012)
(explaining that failure to exhaust administrative remedies is a bar to bringing suit under the ADA).

2

Accordingly, because the EEOC claim was filed on April 6, 2016, all of Plaintiff’s claims
stemming from conduct before October 9, 2015 — which is 180 days prior — cannot be brought
under Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA. Compl. at 35; 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f), 12117(a); 29
U.S.C. § 626(c). Plaintiff offers no argument as to why these procedural issues should not act as a
bar. In fact, Plaintiff concedes that this issue is fatal to many of her claims. Pl.’s Resp. at 6.
IV.

Conclusion

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and
all Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA that arose prior to October 9, 2015
are DISMISSED.

Signed: July 6, 2017

3