Freppon v. Chandler City of et al

Filing 43

ORDER...plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC on 11/12/2010, alleging she was discriminated against because of her gender and pregnacy and was retaliated against because of her complaints of discrimination...the city manage sent pl aintiff a termination letter the following March...plaintiff did not file another charge of discrimination pertaining to her termination...she therefore did not exhaust that claim; the court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's wrongul termination claim. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 04/23/2013. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SABRINA MARIE FREPPON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF CHANDLER and
LT. STEVE SIMON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-11-0912-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Sabrina Marie Freppon sued the City of Chandler, her former employer, and
Lt. Steve Simon, a city employee, alleging claims for Title VII gender/pregnancy
discrimination, retaliation under state and federal law, and tortious interference with a
contractual and business relationship. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment,
which the court granted as to plaintiff’s federal claims. It declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims. Plaintiff appealed and the Tenth Circuit
remanded the case for the court to make written findings as to whether plaintiff
administratively exhausted her pregnancy discrimination claim related to her termination
from her job as a police officer in March 2011.
Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under
Title VII. Shikles v. Sprint/United Management Co.,426 F.3d 1304, 1317 (10th Cir. 2005)
(“Unlike many other circuits, we have held that a plaintiff's exhaustion of his or her
administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit under Title VII—not merely
a condition precedent to suit.”). National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101
(2002) “effected fundamental changes to the doctrine allowing administratively unexhausted

claims in Title VII actions.” Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir. 2003).
“[T]he rule in Morgan requires a Title VII plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies for
each individual discriminatory or retaliatory act.” Id. at 1211. Such discrete acts include
“termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire.” Id. at 1210.
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on November 12, 2010, alleging she was discriminated against because of her
gender and pregnancy and was retaliated against because of her complaints of
discrimination. The city manager sent plaintiff a termination letter the following March.
Plaintiff did not file another charge of discrimination pertaining to her termination. She
therefore did not exhaust that claim. Accordingly, the court lacked jurisdiction to consider
plaintiff’s wrongful termination claim.
Dated this 23rd day of April, 2013.

2