Collucci v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 12/04/2014. (tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

PAUL A. COLLUCCI,

Plaintiff',
Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-397-JAG
V.

TYSON FARMS, INC.,

Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

The plaintiff brings this employment discrimination action after filing for bankruptcy.
The defendant contends that the Court should apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel to bar the
plaintiffs suit because of his failure to disclose his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") charge during the bankruptcy proceedings. The Court finds that the bankruptcy court
did not "accept" the plaintiff's position that he had no legal claims against the defendant because
the bankruptcy court has yet to grant the plaintiff relief or close his bankruptcy case. For this

reason, the Court denies the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
I. Facts'

The plaintiff, Paul A. Collucci ("Collucci"), worked for Tyson Farms ("Tyson") as a

Human Resources manager at the Glen Allen and Crewe facilities in Virginia. On January 26,
2011, Collucci filed a charge against Tyson with the EEOC, claiming age discrimination.

' The standard ofreview for a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same as
the standard used in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion for failure to state a claim. See Independence News,
Inc. V. City of Charlotte, 568 F.3d 148, 154 (4th Cir. 2009). A Rule 12(c) motion tests the
sufficiency of a complaint; it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts of the case, the
merits of a claim, or the applicability of any defense. Republican Party ofN.C. v. Martin, 980
F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir. 1992). In considering the motion, a court must accept all allegations in
the complaint as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. See
Edwards v. City ofGoldsboro, 178 F.3d 231,244 (4th Cir. 1999).