Fox v. the Brown Mem'l Home Inc.

• Decision Date: 07 January 2011
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:09–cv–915.
• Citation: 761 F.Supp.2d 718
• Parties: Cristal L. FOX, et al., Plaintiffs,v.The BROWN MEMORIAL HOME, INC., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

761 F.Supp.2d 718

Cristal L. FOX, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.The BROWN MEMORIAL HOME, INC., et al., Defendants.

Case No. 2:09–cv–915.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Eastern Division.

Jan. 7, 2011.

James Randolph Kingsley, Circleville, OH, for Plaintiffs.Vladimir P. Belo, Cavett Russell Kreps, Bricker & Eckler LLP, Joshua R. Bills, Lane Alton & Horst LLC, Columbus, OH, Amy M. Fulmer, Law Office of Amy Fulmer, Dublin, OH, for Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR., District Judge.

Plaintiffs Christal L. Fox and John Fox brought this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Pickaway County, Ohio, against Defendants Brown Memorial Home, Inc. (“Brown Memorial”), Judy Dennis, Harold Cullum, William Sprout, Charles Gerhardt, Helen Ruff, Paul Roan, Debbie Speakman, Robert McKelvey, and Wayne Hatfield (collectively, “Defendants”) for damages relating to the termination of Plaintiffs' employment with Brown. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged eight causes of action. Ms. Fox alleged Breach of Contract (Claim 1); Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Claim 2); Age Discrimination under Federal and State Law (Claim 3); Sex Discrimination under Federal and State Law (Claim 4); Violation of Public Policy (Marriage Discrimination) (Claim 5); and Slander (Claim 6). Mr. Fox alleged Breach of Contract (Claim 7); and Retaliation (Claim 8).

Defendants removed the case to this Court on the basis of Ms. Fox's federal age discrimination claim. On Defendants' Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, this Court dismissed Ms. Fox's claims for Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Claim 2); Sex Discrimination under Federal and State Law (Claim 4); and Violation of Public Policy (Marriage Discrimination) (Claim 5); and it dismissed Mr. Fox's Retaliation claim (Claim 8).

This matter is now before the Court for consideration of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc 25.) on Plaintiffs' remaining claims, namely Ms. Fox's claims for Breach of Contract (Claim 1); Age Discrimination under Federal and State Law (Claim 3); and Slander (Claim 6); and Mr. Fox's Breach of Contract claim (Claim 7). For the reasons that follow, the Motion is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's federal age discrimination claim only, and the case is REMANDED to the Court of Common Pleas for Pickaway County, Ohio for further proceedings on the remaining state-law claims.

I. Background

Because the disposition of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment rests upon a purely procedural issue, a detailed recitation of the underlying facts is unnecessary. The following brief summary will suffice for present purposes.

Brown Memorial is a nursing home facility which is governed by a Board of Directors. Defendants Cullum, Sprout, Gerhardt, Ruff, Roan, Speakman, McKelvey, and Hatfield serve on the Board of Directors in various capacities. Defendant Dennis is the Administrator of Brown Memorial. Plaintiffs are former employees at Brown Memorial. Ms. Fox and Mr. Fox worked at Brown—she from 1985, he from 1983—until 2009, when the Board terminated their employment.

Ms. Fox was originally hired at Brown as a Nursing Assistant or Nurse Aide. During her tenure at Brown, she earned two nursing certifications, one as a Licensed Practical Nurse (L.P.N.) and one as a Registered Nurse (R.N.), and she received several promotions, eventually serving as Director of Nursing. At the time of her termination, her immediate supervisor was her spouse, Plaintiff John Fox, who held the position of Administrator, Ms. Fox alleges that, over the course of the years, Mr. Fox, in his capacity as Administrator, repeatedly promised Ms. Fox that she would be employed by Brown until she retired. Insofar as her complaint alleges a claim for age discrimination under federal law, Ms. Fox argues that in the weeks before she was terminated, Defendant William Sprout stated to Mr. Fox: “[I]f you have been here more than 10 years, you need to get a new set of eyes to look at things because, otherwise, you are only doing housekeeping chores.” Pls.' Mem. Contra to Second Summ. J. Mot., 16 (citing J. Fox Dep., 109–111). In addition, Ms. Fox contends that she was the only employee with ten years of continuous service who was terminated, that at the time of her termination she was fifty-five years old, and that her replacement is substantially younger.

II. Standard of Review

Defendant has moved for summary judgment under Civil Procedure Rule 56. Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). “In considering a motion for summary judgment, the district court must construe the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Revis v. Meldrum, 489 F.3d 273, 279 (6th Cir.2007) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986)). “The central issue is ‘whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.’ ” Id., 489 F.3d at 279–80 (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)).

III. AnalysisA. Federal Age Discrimination Claim under the ADEA

Christal Fox's federal age discrimination claim must be dismissed because she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act requires a claimant to file a charge of unlawful discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) before bringing suit in federal court. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d); Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans, 441 U.S. 750, 758, 99 S.Ct. 2066, 60 L.Ed.2d 609 (1979); Howlett v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 49 F.3d 189, 194 (6th Cir.1995). The exhaustion requirement is designed “to trigger an investigation, which gives notice to the alleged wrongdoer of its potential liability and enables the EEOC to initiate conciliation procedures in an attempt to avoid litigation.” Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 212, 217 (6th Cir.2004). An ADEA plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies renders the complaint subject to dismissal. Such failure is not, however, a jurisdictional defect, but rather a condition precedent that is subject to equitable tolling or that may be waived by the parties or the court. Rivers v. Barberton Bd. of Educ., 143 F.3d 1029, 1032 (6th Cir.1998).

In this case, Christal Fox has admitted that she did not file a discrimination charge with the EEOC or with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission before bringing her ADEA claims, and she does not allege that she has done so since. The record is devoid of any evidence that Ms. Fox has at any time pursued her age discrimination claim with the appropriate federal or state administrative agencies. Moreover, Ms. Fox offers no explanation for her failure to exhaust her administrative remedies relating to her claims in this suit, nor does she argue that her failure should be waived, tolled or otherwise excused. This Court discerns no reason to waive the exhaustion requirement in this action. Accordingly, Ms. Fox's federal age discrimination claim under the ADEA is dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

B. State Law Claims

Having dismissed the only claim providing independent federal jurisdiction,¹ this Court must now determine whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the parties' remaining state-law claims. ² The statutory provisions governing supplemental jurisdiction are set forth at 28 U.S.C. § 1367, which states, in relevant part:

(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c) or as expressly provided otherwise by Federal statute, in any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction, the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution....

...

(c) The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim under subsection (a) if ... the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C. 1367(a), (c)(3). The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explains that supplemental jurisdiction exists if the following three prerequisites are met: (1) the federal claim has “substance sufficient to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the court”; (2) the state and federal claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative fact”; and (3) “the claims [are] such that plaintiff would ordinarily be expected to try them in one judicial proceeding.” Aschinger v. Columbus Showcase Co., 934 F.2d 1402, 1412 (6th Cir.1991) (citing United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966)). The parties in this action do not dispute that the state-law claims in this action meet the prerequisites of supplemental jurisdiction. Rather, they dispute whether this Court should, in the exercise of its discretion, retain the matter or remand it to state court.

In Carlsbad Technology, Inc. v. HIF Bio, Inc., ––– U.S. ––––, 129 S.Ct. 1862, 1866–67, 173 L.Ed.2d 843 (2009), the United States Supreme Court emphasized that, once a district court has dismissed every claim over which it had independent jurisdiction, the decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a remaining state-law claim is “purely discretionary.” In its most recent treatment of the subject, the Sixth Circuit recognized that district courts possess “broad discretion” to decide whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims that fall within the purview of Section 1367. Gamel v. City of Cincinnati, 625 F.3d...