Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Unit Drilling Company et al

Filing 117

OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Terence Kern (Re: 103 MOTION to Strike Document(s) MOTION to Expedite Ruling ) (vah, Chambers)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
PATSY CRAIG,
Intervenor Plaintiff,
vs.
UNIT DRILLING COMPANY and
UNIT CORPORATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 13-CV-147-TCK-PJC

OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion to Strike Unit Drilling’s Answer filed by Plaintiff Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on April 24, 2014 (Doc. 103).1 The EEOC
requests the Court strike four affirmative defenses asserted in the answer filed by Defendant Unit
Drilling Company (“Defendant”).2

1

The EEOC requests an expedited ruling on its motion in the event that the resolution of
this motion would impact the scope of discovery, which ends on June 20, 2014, under the current
scheduling order.
2

In the motion, the EEOC seeks to have Defendant’s answer stricken as untimely. On
May 2, 2014, Defendant filed an Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Answer Out of Time
(Doc. 108). The Court granted the motion on May 7, 2014, and deemed Defendant’s answer
timely filed (Doc. 111). Therefore, only that portion of the motion to strike regarding
Defendant’s affirmative defenses remains pending.

I.

Background
On February 4, 2009, Plaintiff-Intervenor Patsy Craig (“Craig”) filed a charge of

discrimination with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination by Defendant. In her charge, Craig
claimed she was not hired by Defendant because she is female. After Craig filed her charge, the
EEOC began to investigate her claim. The EEOC eventually filed suit against Defendant and Unit
Corporation3 on September 28, 2012, on behalf of Patsy Craig and “a class of female applicants”
alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and Title I of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991.
On April 29, 2013, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Among
other arguments, Defendant contended that: (1) the EEOC actually failed to satisfy the
administrative prerequisites before filing suit, and (2) the EEOC failed to properly plead satisfaction
of the administrative prerequisites. On November 1, 2013, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion
to dismiss, finding that the EEOC had actually satisfied the administrative prerequisites and properly
plead such satisfaction in the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 76.)
II.

Motion to Strike
The EEOC moves to strike Defendant’s second, third, fourth, and fifth affirmative defenses,

which read as follows:
2. Plaintiff fails to plead facts showing that, prior to bringing this action, it satisfied
the mandatory administrative prerequisites necessary to establish this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction.

3

On April 19, 2013, the EEOC filed a First Amended Complaint, abandoning its claims
against Defendant Unit Corporation and asserting claims only against Unit Drilling Company.
(Doc. 52.)
2

3. Plaintiff failed to actually satisfy, prior to bringing this action, the mandatory
administrative prerequisites necessary for this Court to have subject matter
jurisdiction.
4. Plaintiff failed to provide Unit Drilling with adequate pre-suit notice of all claims.
5. Plaintiff failed to engage in a good faith attempt at conciliating all claims prior
to bringing this action.
(Doc. 101 at 3.) EEOC argues these affirmative defenses should be stricken because they were
previously raised and adjudicated in the context of Defendant’s motion to dismiss.
Rule 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits an “insufficient defense” to be
stricken from a pleading. Under Rule 12(f), a defense is insufficient if it cannot succeed, as a matter
of law, under any circumstances. United States v. Hardage, 116 F.R.D. 460, 463 (W.D. Okla.
1987); Hayne v. Green Ford Sales, Inc., 263 F.R.D. 647, 648-49 (D. Kan. 2009). “On a motion to
strike affirmative defenses, the Court must examine each affirmative defense at issue to ascertain
whether any question of fact or law is raised by the defense. If a defense raises such a question, then
the motion to strike is improper and the issue must be decided subsequently on the merits, when
more information is available.” Hardage, 116 F.R.D. at 463. Motions to strike are a drastic remedy
and are disfavored by courts. See Oilfield Improvements, Inc. v. Coston, No. 10-CV-577-TCKTLW, 2012 WL 1752994, at *1 (“Striking a pleading or part of a pleading is a drastic remedy and
because a motion to strike may often be made as a dilatory tactic, motions to strike under Rule 12(f)
generally are disfavored.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Lane v. Page, 272 F.R.D. 581, 596
(D.N.M. 2011)(“[M]otions to strike, in most cases, waste everyone’s time.”).
The Court addressed the administrative prerequisites, pre-suit notice, and conciliation in its
Opinion and Order denying Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. In doing so, the Court found that the
administrative prerequisites had been satisfied (at least on the information available at that juncture
3

of the proceedings) and, thus, that the challenged affirmative defenses are legally insufficient.
However, these affirmative defenses relate to the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, which may be
challenged at any point in the proceeding. See McAlester v. United Air Lines, Inc., 851 F.2d 1249,
1252 (10th Cir. 1988). Further, there is no real need in this case to invoke such a drastic remedy.
Striking the affirmative defenses would not materially alter or limit the parties’ discovery, and the
EEOC has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer any hardship or prejudice if the motion to strike
is denied. The record clearly indicates the Court’s prior ruling and further action is unnecessary.
III.

Conclusion
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Motion to Strike Unit Drilling’s

Answer (Doc. 103) is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2014.

4