Williams v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.

• Decision Date: 31 May 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-2694.,00-2694.
• Citation: 143 F.Supp.2d 941
• Parties: Kevin D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee

143 F.Supp.2d 941

Kevin D. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant.

No. 00-2694.

United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division.

May 31, 2001.

Kevin D. Williams, Memphis, TN, pro se.

Jef Feibelman, Burch Porter & Johnson, Susan M. Clark, Burch Porter & Johnson, Memphis, TN, George J. Ditta, II, Leslie W. Ehret, Frilot Partridge Kohnke & Clements, New Orleans, LA, for Sears, Roebuck and Co., defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

DONALD, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Sears, Roebuck and Company ("Defendant")'s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Kevin D. Williams ("Plaintiff")'s Title VII complaint for employment discrimination. Defendants contend that Plaintiff's Title VII claim is time-barred and that equitable tolling is not proper in the instant case. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's motion to dismiss is granted.

I. Background Facts

On August 4, 2000, Plaintiff filed an employment discrimination complaint under Title VII. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that he received a right to sue letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), on May 5, 2000.

On October 3, 2000, this Court issued an order finding that the allegations on the face of the complaint indicate that Plaintiff's claims are barred, and ordering Plaintiff to amend his complaint to state specific facts, including dates and times, that show the basis for equitable tolling.

On October 18, 2000, Plaintiff wrote the Court a letter claiming three excuses for the late filing: (1) he was away at school, with the exception of a Fourth of July break and every other weekend, from June 5 through August 18, 2000; (2) he was unable to find legal counsel willing to take his case; and (3) when he attempted to file his complaint he was told that copies needed to be made.

On March 5, 2001, the Court entered an Order to Issue Service of Process. The Summons and Plaintiff's Complaint were issued on March 7, 2001. Defendant's answer was due April 25, 2001. Plaintiff's time to respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss has expired.

II. Motion to Dismiss Standard

A party may bring a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).¹ The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the formal sufficiency of the claim and not to resolve the facts or merits of the case. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2nd § 1356 (West 1990). This motion only tests whether a cognizable claim has been pleaded in the complaint. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436 (6th Cir.1988). Essentially, it allows the court to dismiss meritless cases which would otherwise waste scarce judicial resources and result in unnecessary discovery. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989).

Generally, a motion for failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) should be made prior to the filing of a responsive pleading. 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, Civil 2nd § 1357 (West 1990). However, later filing may be permitted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h).

The Supreme Court has held that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957). See also Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326-27, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Lewis v. ACB Business Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405 (6th Cir.1998); Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. v. Cincinnati Enquirer, Inc., A Div. Of Gannett Co., Inc., 943 F.2d 644, 646 (6th Cir.1991). Thus, the standard to be applied when evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is very liberal in favor of the party opposing the motion. Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858 (6th Cir.1976). Even if the plaintiff's chances of success are remote or unlikely, a motion to dismiss should be denied. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974).

To determine whether a motion to dismiss should be granted, the court must first examine the complaint. The complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). What the complaint must do is provide the defendant with "fair notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); Westlake v. Lucas, 537 F.2d 857, 858 (6th Cir.1976). The complaint need not specify all the particularities of the claim. Id.² However, this does not relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to allege the essential material facts of the case. Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc., 859 F.2d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1988).³ Such allegations of essential material elements, however, need not be direct they may be inferential. Andrews v. State of Ohio, 104 F.3d 803, 806 (6th Cir.1997)(citing In re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir.1993)).

In reviewing the complaint, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and construe them in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236, 94 S.Ct. 1683, 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974); Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172, 174-75, 86 S.Ct. 347, 15 L.Ed.2d 247 (1965); Windsor v. The Tennessean, 719 F.2d 155, 158 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 826, 105 S.Ct. 105, 83 L.Ed.2d 50 (1984). Indeed, the facts, as alleged by the plaintiff, cannot be disbelieved by the court. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327, 109 S.Ct. 1827, 104 L.Ed.2d 338 (1989); Murphy v. Sofamor Danek Group, Inc. (In re Sofamor Danek Group, Inc.), 123 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1106, 118 S.Ct. 1675, 140 L.Ed.2d 813 (1998). Where there are conflicting interpretations of the facts, they must be construed in the plaintiff's favor. Sinay v. Lamson & Sessions Co., 948 F.2d 1037, 1039-40 (6th Cir.1991). However, legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences should not be accepted as true. Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 405-06 (6th Cir.1998); Morgan v. Church's Fried Chicken, 829 F.2d 10, 12 (6th Cir.1987).

Finally, the court will generally only consider the pleadings on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. However, if the court decides to consider other materials besides the pleadings, then it will be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b).⁴

III. Analysis

A. Plaintiff's Title VII claim is time-barred.

An employment discrimination suit under Title VII must be filed within ninety days of Plaintiff's receipt of a right to sue letter from the EEOC. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). Failure to bring suit within the prescribed ninety day limit is grounds for dismissal. See, e.g., Irwin v. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990); Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 150, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984).

Federal courts have strictly enforced Title VII's ninety day statutory limit. Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art. Inc., 209 F.3d at 553. "If the undisputed facts, and/or the record evidence viewed most favorable for the plaintiff, demonstrates as a matter of law that the plaintiff commenced her lawsuit beyond the ambit of limitations, in the absence of a waiver, estoppel, or compelling justification or excuse which tolled limitations..., a summary dismissal of the complaint should be sustained." See Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393, 394, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982); Mounts v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 198 F.3d 578, 580 (6th Cir.2000); Graham-Humphreys v. Memphis Brooks Museum of Art. Inc., 209 F.3d 552, 557 n. 8 (6th Cir.2000).

It is undisputed that Williams filed his complaint more than ninety days after receipt of the right to sue letter from the EEOC. In his complaint, Williams states he received his EEOC right to sue letter on May 5, 2000. He filed this lawsuit on August 4, 2000, ninety-one days later. Title VII's ninety day period applies to pro se plaintiffs, and even one day's delay is fatal to a claim. See, e.g., Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. at 150, 104 S.Ct. 1723; Anooya v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 733 F.2d 48, 49 (7th Cir.1984); Wilson v. Doctors Hosp. of Hyde Park, 909 F.Supp. 580, 581 (N.D.Ill.1996) (dismissing pro se plaintiff's Title VII claim filed ninety one days after receipt of right to sue letter).

In Peete v. Am. Standard Graphic, 885 F.2d 331 (6th Cir.1989), plaintiff alleged that he received his right to sue letter from the EEOC on March 26, 1987. He then filed suit in district court on June 25, 1987, ninety one days after receipt of his right to sue letter. On appeal, plaintiff argued that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(e) operated to provide him with ninety three days within which to act. The Sixth Circuit flatly rejected this argument holding:

It is undisputed that [plaintiff] filed his complaint more than ninety days after he received his right to sue letter. In the absence of waiver, estoppel or equitable tolling [citations omitted] none of which are present here, the district court was correct in granting summary judgment....

Id. at 332.

In Johnson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 863 F.2d 48, 1988 WL 122962 (6th Cir.1988), the Sixth Circuit held the fact that plaintiff was proceeding pro se did not justify application of the doctrine of equitable tolling where plaintiff missed her filing deadline by one day. The court stated: "If courts were to toll the limitation period whenever a plaintiff was one...