Yamamoto v. Salt Lake Film Society et al
Filing
9
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order-because Plaintiff did not timely exhaust hisadministrative remedies, which is a condition precedent to suit,his case is procedurally barred and must be dismissed. See order for details. Signed by Judge David Sam on 4/19/12. (jmr)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
TOMOAKI YAMAMOTO,
)
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 2:12CV00253 DS
)
)
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
)
SALT LAKE FILM SOCIETY,
SUNDANCE FILM INSTITUTE,
Defendants.
)
)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed
a claim pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for
discrimination
in
employment
and
for
retaliation.1
Named as
defendants are the Salt Lake Film Society and the Sundance Film
Institute.
Plaintiff’s Complaint contains numerous, and what on their
face appear
to
be
fanciful, allegations not
material
to
his
asserted claims. In brief, Plaintiff in conclusory fashion alleges
that in 1998, he was employed by the Tower Theater, which a year
later became the Salt Lake Film Society, and that in 2009, his
employment was terminated because he is Japanese.
1
He also claims,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful
for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any
individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual
with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion,
sex, or national origin”. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1).
without alleging any specific facts, that he subsequently applied
for positions with other employers around the area but was not
hired
and
that
this
was
a
result
of
Defendants
continued
discrimination and retaliation against him. Plaintiff alleges that
he
didn’t
learn
“that
Defendants
had
terminated
Plaintiff’s
employment and subjected Plaintiff to various types of harassment
because of Plaintiff’s national origin” until January 18, 2010.
Compl. ¶22.
Plaintiff complains of no specific alleged unlawful
acts subsequent to January 18, 2010.
He did not file his EEOC
charge until August 18, 2011.
Exhaustion
instituting
a
of
administrative
federal
action
remedies
under
Title
is
required
VII.
before
Shikles
v.
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304, 1309-10 (10th Cir. 2005).
“An employee wishing to challenge an employment practice under
Title VII must first ‘file’ a ‘charge’ of discrimination with the
EEOC.”
Montes v. Vail Clinic, Inc., 497 F.3d 1160, 1163 (10th Cir.
2007)(citations omitted).
Because Title VII seeks to avoid ‘the
pressing of stale claims,’ it requires aggrieved persons to file
any
such
charge
within
certain
specified
allegedly unlawful conduct occurred.”
periods
after
the
Id. (citations omitted).
“If the employee does not submit a timely EEOC charge, he or she
may not proceed to court. ... While the applicable deadline for
filing
a
charge
with
the
EEOC
2
depends
on
a
variety
of
circumstances, the latest possible filing date is 300 days after
the last allegedly unlawful act.”
Id. (citation omitted).
Because Plaintiff waited well over 300 days from the time he
allegedly learned of the purported unlawful employment practice to
file his EEOC charge, his EEOC charge was untimely.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court
is directed to dismiss such a case at any time if the Court
determines that the action fails to state a claim on which relief
may be granted.
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Accordingly, because Plaintiff did not timely exhaust his
administrative remedies, which is a condition precedent to suit,
his case is procedurally barred and must be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 19th day of April, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
DAVID SAM
SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?