U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Route 22 Sports Bar, Inc.

• Decision Date: 22 June 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-7
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
• Parties: U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ROUTE 22 SPORTS BAR, INC. and CRAZY MEXICAN RESTAURANT & GRILL, LLC, Defendants.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, v. ROUTE 22 SPORTS BAR, INC.and CRAZY MEXICAN RESTAURANT & GRILL, LLC, Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-CV-7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling

June 22, 2021

Judge Bailey

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS TO STRIKE

Pending before this Court is a variety of motions for judgment on the pleadings and motions to strike. On May 2, 2021, defendant Route 22 Sports Bar, Inc. ("defendant Route 22") filed its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Doc. 31] and accompanying Memorandum in Support [Doc. 32]. Thereafter, defendant Crazy Mexican Restaurant & Grill, LLC ("defendant CM Restaurant") joined in the Motion [Doc. 35]. Plaintiff filed a Memorandum in Response to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 41] on May 14, 2021, and defendant filed its Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 51] on May 21, 2021.

Plaintiff filed its Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the alternative, Motion to Strike Certain of Defendants' Affirmative Defenses [Doc. 33] and accompanying Memorandum in Support [Doc. 34] on May 3, 2021. Defendant CM Restaurant filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings or Motion to Strike [Doc. 42] on May 17, 2021. Defendant Route 22 filed its Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff EEOC's Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Certain of Defendants' Affirmative Defenses [Doc. 47] on May 17, 2021. Thereafter, plaintiff filed its Reply in Support of its Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, Motion to Strike Certain of Defendants' Affirmative Defenses [Doc. 53] on May 24, 2021.

Plaintiff filed an additional Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion to Strike [Doc. 36] and accompanying Memorandum in Support [Doc. 37] on May 3, 2021. Thereafter, defendants filed respective Memoranda in Opposition [Docs. 44 & 46] on May 17, 2021. Plaintiff filed its Reply to Defendants' Memoranda in Opposition [Doc. 52] on May 24, 2021. Having been briefed extensively, this Court will discuss the underlying factual background, applicable legal standards, and the merits of each motion in turn.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("plaintiff" or "EEOC") initiated this action through its complaint [Doc. 1] pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("the Act"). Therein, plaintiff asserts that defendants subjected Madelene M. Billick and a class of current and former aggrieved female employees to a hostile work environment on the basis of their sex. [Doc. 1]. Moreover, plaintiff contends defendants subjected Billick to retaliation for opposing defendants' unlawful employment practices. [Id.]. Defendants assert a variety of defenses to plaintiff's claims in their respective answers, several of which are thesubject to the pending motions for judgment on the pleadings or, alternatively, motions to strike. See [Docs. 17 & 19].

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

I. Judgment on the Pleadings

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that, "[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." "In analyzing a party's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule 12(c), the Fourth Circuit has indicated that the applicable standard is the same as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6), noting that the 'distinction is one without a difference.'" Hurley v. Wayne Cty. Bd. of Educ., 2017 WL 2454325, at *3 (S.D. W.Va. June 6, 2017) (Chambers, C.J.) (quoting Burbach Broad. Co. of Del. v. Elkins Radio Corp., 278 F.3d 401, 405-06 (4th Cir. 2002)); see also Drager v. PLIVA USA

, Inc., 741 F.3d 470, 474 (4th Cir. 2014) ("The standard of review for Rule 12(c) motions is the same as that under Rule 12(b)(6).") (citing Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749, 751 (4th Cir. 2012)). "The only difference between a Rule 12(c) motion and a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is timing." West Virginia Auto. and Truck Dealers Ass'n v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 WL 2440406, at *3 (N.D. W.Va. May 30, 2014) (Keeley, J.) (citing Burbach, 278 F.3d at 405-06); see also Miller v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 2013 WL 12137238, at *1 (N.D. W.Va. Nov. 4, 2013) (Bailey, C.J.) ("Rule 12(c) motions may be raised after the pleadings are closed, and are reviewed under the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss.") (citing Burbach, 278 F.3d at 405-06).

"Therefore, a motion for judgment on the pleadings 'should only be granted if, after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief.'" Drager, 741 F.3d at 474 (quoting Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir. 1999)). "A Rule 12(c) motion tests only the sufficiency of the complaint and does not resolve the merits of the plaintiff's claims or any disputes of fact." Id. (citing Butler, 702 F.3d at 752).

"Further, as a general matter, no information outside of the pleadings may be considered." EQT Corp. v. Miller, 2012 WL 3839417, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Sept. 5, 2012) (Stamp, J.) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d)). However, the Court may consider any documents that are "integral to the complaint and authentic." Occupy Columbia v. Haley, 738 F.3d 107, 116 (4th Cir. 2013).

II. Striking a Pleading

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), on the other hand, permits a district court to strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). As the Fourth Circuit has recognized, "[A] defense that might confuse the issues of the case and would not, under the facts alleged, constitute a valid defense to the action, can and should be deleted." Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001). "[I]f a movant can show that a defense is clearly insufficient, the court should grant the motion to strike." Racick v. Dominion L. Assocs., 270 F.R.D.228, 232(E.D. N.C.2010). Before striking a defense, the court should determine that "there are no questions of fact, that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and thatunder no set of circumstances could the defense succeed." Nat'l Credit Union Admin. v. First Union Cap. Markets Corp., 189 F.R.D. 158, 163 (D. Md. 1999) (quoting Clark v. Milam, 152 F.R.D. 66, 70 (S.D. W.Va. 1993)); cf. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. AS. Templeton Grp.

, Inc., 297 F.Supp. 2d 531, 533 (E.D. N.Y. 2003) ("In order to prevail on a motion to strike a defense for legal insufficiency, a plaintiff must show that (1) there is no question of fact which might allow the defense to succeed; (2)there is no question of law which might allow the defense to succeed; and (3) the plaintiff would be prejudiced by inclusion of the defense."). Furthermore, "a defense that might confuse the issues in the case and would not, under the facts alleged, constitute a valid defense to the action can and should be deleted." Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, 252 F.3d 316, 347 (4th Cir. 2001) (quoting 5A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1381 (2nd ed. 1990)).

DISCUSSION

As the parties have filed multiple briefs in support of their competing positions, this Court will address each Motion in turn.

I. Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

In the first Motion, defendants assert that EEOC is mandated to obtain approval from its Commissioners prior to filing complaints alleging systemic discrimination. [Doc. 32 at 1]. Defendants contend that EEOC failed to plead or otherwise confirm whether its Commissioners approved the subject lawsuit. [Id. at 2]. More specifically, defendants state that EEOC's complaint "on its face establishes that the EEOC alleges systemic discriminationand a pattern or practice of discrimination against Route 22." [Id. at 3], Defendants note that prior to filing the subject Motion, they consulted the publicly available results of the Commissioners' votes forthe period preceding the filing of the subject lawsuit and determined that the lawsuit was not included on the list of approved suits by the Commissioners. [Id. at 3-4]. Based on this purported failure to meet conditions precedent to filing suit, defendants conclude that the complaint should be dismissed. [Id. at 2].

In Response, plaintiff contends that in conformity with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(c), it pleaded that all conditions precedent to the pending lawsuit were fulfilled. [Doc. 41 at 1-2]. Further, plaintiff argues that a full Commissioners vote authorizing the subject litigation is not a condition precedent to initiating the subject litigation. [Id. at 2]. In support thereof, plaintiff states that the plain language of the Act and controlling case law demonstrates that EEOC's internal procedures are not prerequisite to agency enforcement actions, and EEOC litigation decision-making is discretionary. [Id.].

In its Reply, defendants reassert that EEOC's litigation procedures require that the Senate-confirmed EEOC Commissioners approve systemic lawsuits prior to filing complaints. [Doc. 51 at 1]. Under these circumstances, defendants contend that this Court should grant judgment on the pleadings in their favor. [Id. at 2].

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(c) provides that "[i]n pleading conditions precedent, it suffices to allege generally that all conditions precedent have occurred or been performed. But when denying that a condition precedent has occurred or been performed,...