Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Center

• Decision Date: 12 April 2007
• Docket Number: No. 06-2318.,06-2318.
• Citation: Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Center, 481 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2007)
• Parties: Jennifer MILES, Appellant, v. BELLFONTAINE HABILITATION CENTER, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

481 F.3d 1106

Jennifer MILES, Appellant, v.BELLFONTAINE HABILITATION CENTER, Appellee.

No. 06-2318.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 6, 2007.

Filed: April 12, 2007.

Jennifer Miles, St. Louis, MO, pro se.

Denise Leanne Thomas, and Michael S. Meyers, Asst. Atty. Generals, St. Louis, MO, for appellee.

Before RILEY, HANSEN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Jennifer Miles(Miles) appeals from the district court's dismissal of her pro se Title VII employment discrimination and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) action against Bellefontaine Habilitation Center (the Center).Upon de novo review, seeAtkinson v. Bohn,91 F.3d 1127, 1128(8th Cir.1996)(per curiam);Thomas v. FAG Bearings Corp.,50 F.3d 502, 504(8th Cir.1995), we affirm in part and reverse in part.

The district court properly dismissed with prejudice Miles's FMLA claim, which was brought under FMLA's self-care provisions.As an agency of the state of Missouri, seeMo. Const. art. IV, § 12;Mo.Rev.Stat. § 630.003.1.5, the Center is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from the claim, seeTownsel v. Missouri,233 F.3d 1094, 1096(8th Cir.2000), overruled in part byNev. Dep't of Human Res. v. Hibbs,538 U.S. 721, 735-37, 123 S.Ct. 1972, 155 L.Ed.2d 953(2003);cf.Brockman v. Wyo. Dep't of Family Servs.,342 F.3d 1159, 1164, 1165 n. 3(10th Cir.2003)(construing effect of Hibbs and concluding immunity was not abrogated for self-care under FMLA).

We conclude, however, the district court improperly dismissed Miles's Title VII claim for failure to plead sufficiently she had exhausted her administrative remedies.Miles's complaint needed only to contain a "short and plain statement" establishing the court's jurisdiction and her entitlement to relief.SeeFed. R.Civ.P. 8(a).While Miles was required to exhaust her administrative remedies with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) before bringing suit, seeWilliams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works,21 F.3d 218, 222(8th Cir.1994), failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that a defendant must prove, seeMiller v. Runyon,32 F.3d 386, 388(8th Cir.1994).Miles stated in her form complaint she filed a charge with the EEOC concerning the alleged discrimination and retaliation described in her complaint, and she attached a right-to-sue letter the EEOC issued in January 2006.Defendant's motion to dismiss did not challenge this statement.We know of no authority requiring Miles to attach her EEOC charge to her complaint, or to provide additional...