STEZZI v. CITIZENS BANK OF PA

Filing 43

MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION ORDER THAT TALX'S MOTION TO DISMISS IS GRANTED AND STEZZI'S CLAIM AGAINST TALX IS DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT STEZZI AND CITIZENS BANK CONFER AND AGREE UPON A DISCOVERY SCHEDULE TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WITHIN FOURTEEN DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER; ETC.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS N. ONEILL, JR ON 6/11/2012. 6/11/2012 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED; AND MAILED TO PRO SE. (ems)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GLORIA J. STEZZI
v.
CITIZENS BANK OF PENNSYLVANIA
and TALX

:
:
:
:
:
:

O’NEILL, J.

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 10-4333

JUNE 11th, 2012
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Gloria Stezzi filed a Title VII Complaint against her former employer, Citizens Bank of
Pennsylvania, alleging that Citizens Bank retaliated against her for filing an Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission charge of discrimination based on age, gender and race. See Dkt. Nos.
4 and 4-1 at 36. According to Stezzi, Citizens Bank retaliated against her by appealing her award
of unemployment compensation benefits. Dkt. No. 4-1 at 5. Before bringing suit in this Court
against her former employer, Stezzi filed an EEOC charge against Citizens Bank and obtained a
right to sue letter. Id. at 42 and 1.
Stezzi has now filed an Amended Complaint adding a Title VII retaliation claim against a
new defendant, Talx. According to the Amended Complaint, Talx represented Citizens Bank in
the appeal of Stezzi’s unemployment compensation award. Dkt. No. 20 at 15. Stezzi does not,
however, allege that she exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to Talx. The
documents attached to her original Complaint show that she filed an EEOC charge against
Citizens Bank but not against Talx. See Dkt. No. 4-1 at 42. Stezzi has not exhausted her claim
against Talx by virtue of her administrative charge against Citizens Bank. See Williams v. E.
Orange Cmty. Charter Sch., 396 Fed. App’x 895, 897 (2010) (per curiam) (“The ensuing suit is
limited to claims that are within the scope of the initial administrative charge.”). Accordingly,

Stezzi’s claim against Talx will be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See
Burgh v. Borough Council of Montrose, 251 F.3d 465, 469 (3d Cir. 2001).
AND NOW, this 11th day of June, 2012, upon consideration of Talx’s motion to dismiss
and Stezzi’s response, it is ORDERED that Talx’s motion is GRANTED and Stezzi’s claim
against Talx is DISMISSED.
It is further ORDERED that Stezzi and Citizens Bank shall confer and agree upon a
discovery schedule to be submitted to the Court within fourteen days of the date of this Order. If
the parties believe a settlement conference would be productive they should inform my chambers
in writing at 601 Market Street, Room 4007, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1797.

s/Thomas N. O’Neill, Jr.
THOMAS N. O’NEILL, JR., J.

2