Krouse v. American Sterilizer Co.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1994
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 93-313 Erie.
• Citation: 872 F. Supp. 203
• Parties: Robert V. KROUSE, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN STERILIZER COMPANY, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

872 F. Supp. 203

Robert V. KROUSE, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN STERILIZER COMPANY, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 93-313 Erie.

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

November 25, 1994.

Wayne G. Johnson, Gifford, Lay & Johnson, Erie, PA, for plaintiff.

Douglas G. Smith, Andrea R. Clark, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, Pittsburgh, PA, Stephen X. Munger, Lisa A. Schreter, Jackson, Lewis, Schnitzler & Krupman, Atlanta, GA, for defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

McLAUGHLIN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Robert V. Krouse ("Krouse") has filed this action against Defendant American Sterilizer Company ("AMSCO") alleging that AMSCO violated the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. ("ADA"). Presently pending before this Court is AMSCO's Motion to Dismiss and Krouse's Motion for Sanctions.

For the reasons set forth below, both motions will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

The essential facts relevant to these motions are set forth in the parties' pleadings and are not in dispute. After suffering a work-related injury to his back, Krouse filed a charge with the EEOC alleging, inter alia, that AMSCO violated ADA by refusing to consider Krouse's request and proposal for reasonable work accommodations and by arbitrarily changing his job classification and shift assignments due to his disability.

On or about July 8, 1993, Krouse received a determination letter and notice from the EEOC informing him that the agency had concluded its processing of the charge and advising that Krouse could pursue the matter further by filing a private lawsuit within ninety days of the effective date of the determination letter. Acting pro se, Krouse filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons in the Erie County, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas on September 24, 1993, within ninety days of having received his "right-to-sue notice" from the EEOC. Krouse subsequently filed his Complaint in Common Pleas Court on October 21, 1993. The Complaint was served on AMSCO the following day, 105 days after Krouse had received his right-to-sue notice.

After removing the case to this Court, AMSCO filed its Motion to Dismiss on the ground that Krouse's ADA claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. AMSCO argues that the state court praecipe and writ did not toll the limitations period and that, in order to preserve his ADA claim, Plaintiff was required to file a complaint in conformity with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure within ninety days of receiving the right-to-sue notice. Krouse has filed a memorandum in opposition to AMSCO's Motion to Dismiss and has moved for sanctions against AMSCO to recover his costs in defending the motion.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

AMSCO has predicated its motion on Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Krouse maintains that the motion is more properly treated as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The precise characterization of AMSCO's motion is not material, however, since the standard of review is similar under either designation. See Society Hill Civil Ass'n v. Harris, 632 F.2d 1045, 1054 (3d Cir.1980). Namely, this Court must accept the facts presented in the pleadings, as well as all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and may not dismiss the Complaint unless it appears that Plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to relief. Id. See also Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 935, 106 S.Ct. 267, 88 L.Ed.2d 274 (1985).

III. DISCUSSION

The parties to this action agree that the relevant statute of limitations provision governing ADA claims is found in Section 706(f)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f)(1). This is mandated by Section 107(a) of ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) which specifically provides that:

the powers, remedies, and procedures set forth in sections ... 2000e-5 ... of this title shall be the powers, remedies, and procedures this subchapter provides to ... any person alleging discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of any provision of this chapter, or regulations promulgated under section 12116 of this title ... concerning employment.

See also Kent v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Elem. & Sec. Educ., 792 F.Supp. 59 (E.D.Mo.1992) (ADA case construing 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 and holding that receipt of a right-to-sue letter under that section is a statutory prerequisite to private action), remanded without op., 989 F.2d 505, 1993 WL 72395, 1993 U.S.App. LEXIS 4813 (8th Cir.1993). Section 2000e-5(f)(1) establishes a 90-day period in which to file a private lawsuit, commencing from the date that the EEOC provides notice of its dismissal (or other disposition) of an administrative charge.

In support of its motion to dismiss, AMSCO argues that the only means of initiating an action under Title VII or ADA is to file a complaint in conformity with Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss, hereinafter "Def. Mem.," pp. 7-8, 10; Defendant's Reply Memorandum, pp. 2 and 7.) AMSCO contends that the state court writ of summons failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 8(a), because it did not contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief," and because the writ failed to give AMSCO notice of either the nature or grounds of Plaintiff's claim. (Def. Mem., pp. 7-8.) Thus, it is AMSCO's position that, because Krouse failed to file a Federal Rule 8(a) complaint within the statutory 90-day period, his ADA claim is now time-barred. (Def. Mem., pp. 10-11; Def. Reply Mem., pp. 6-7.) This Court finds that, for several reasons, AMSCO's argument is not well taken.

We begin with the observation that the relevant statute of limitations provision, § 2000e-5(f)(1), contains no reference at all to a "complaint," much less a Federal Rule 8(a) complaint. Rather, that section provides in relevant part:

If a charge filed with the Commission ... is dismissed by the Commission ... the Commission ... shall so notify the person aggrieved and within ninety days after the giving of such notice a civil action may be brought against the respondent named in the charge ... by the person claiming to be aggrieved ...

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) (emphasis supplied). Thus, the statute requires only that a civil action be brought within the 90-day limitations period, but it does not specify the manner of commencing the "civil action." As an initial matter, then, nothing in § 2000e-5(f)(1) itself rules out the commencement of an ADA action by the means employed by Plaintiff.

Furthermore, despite the short history of ADA and the relative scarcity of ADA case law, it appears to be solidly established that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over ADA cases. In Yellow Freight Sys., Inc. v. Donnelly, 494 U.S. 820, 821, 110 S.Ct. 1566, 1567, 108 L.Ed.2d 834 (1990), the United States Supreme Court considered Section 706(f)(3) of Title VII, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3),¹ and determined that "Congress did not divest the state courts of their concurrent authority to adjudicate Title VII claims." The Court reasoned that, in order to give federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over a federal cause of action, Congress must affirmatively divest state courts of their presumptive concurrent jurisdiction, and Congress did not do this in enacting Title VII. Id. at 823, 110 S.Ct. at 1569.

This holding has been extended, both explicitly and implicitly, to claims asserted under ADA. See e.g. Berlongieri v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 3 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1193, No. 94 C 980, 1994 WL 445462 at *2, 1994 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 11353 at *4 (N.D.Ill. August 12, 1994) ("since state courts have concurrent jurisdiction with federal courts for adjudicating Title VII claims brought by employees under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) ... state courts also have concurrent jurisdiction over ADA claims"); Jones v. Illinois Cent. R.R. Co., 859 F.Supp. 1144, 1145 (N.D.Ill. 1994) (noting that in Yellow Freight "a unanimous Supreme Court has held that the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction ... for the adjudication of Title VII claims ... That being so, it necessarily follows that the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over ADA claims as well"). See also Lilliback v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 94 Ohio App.3d 100, 113-115, 640 N.E.2d 250 (Mont. Cty. March 30, 1994) (adjudicating ADA claim and holding that ADA does not create a civil right to promotion merely by virtue of employee's disability, nor does it require the employer to make accommodations which the employee could have made himself).²

Thus, there is nothing in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) or the supporting case law which either expressly or impliedly proscribes Krouse's commencement of this ADA action by filing a praecipe for writ of summons in the proper Pennsylvania state court.

The Court will next consider the precise basis of AMSCO's argument in favor of dismissal and the authority on which it relies. As an initial matter, AMSCO appears to take issue with the proposition that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over ADA claims, although it cites no authority for its position.³ To the extent that AMSCO maintains that state courts do not have jurisdiction over ADA claims, this Court disagrees based on the authorities previously cited.

Nevertheless, AMSCO apparently does not dispute the fact that the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure recognize the commencement of an action by filing a praecipe for writ of summons with the Prothonotary. See Pa. R.C.P. No. 1007, which expressly permits a civil action to be commenced "by filing with the prothonotary (1) a praecipe for a writ of summons, or (2) a complaint." (Emphasis supplied.) Further, AMSCO does not contend that the subject praecipe in any respect failed to comply with the...