United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Shreveport Division
ANDREA S. LOUIS
HAMPTON INN BOSSIER CITY, ET AL.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE HORNSBY
MAURICE HICKS, JR., CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
the Court is Defendant Savoy Bossier City Hotels, LLC's
(incorrectly identified in the complaint as “Hampton
Inn Bossier City”) (hereinafter
“Defendant”) Partial Motion to Dismiss pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See
Record Document 18. Plaintiff Andrea S. Louis
(“Plaintiff”) opposes the motion. See
Record Document 22. Defendant seeks dismissal of
Plaintiff's claims alleging age and race discrimination.
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is
brings this pro se suit alleging claims for sexual
harassment, retaliation, and age and race discrimination
against Defendant. Prior to filing her Complaint (the
“Complaint”) on February 20, 2018, Plaintiff
filed a “charge of discrimination” with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on
November 26, 2017 in which she checked the boxes on the
charge form for “SEX, ” “RACE, ” and
“RETALIATION” but did not check the box for
“AGE.” See Record Document 18-2 at 2;
Record Document 18-1. In addition, Plaintiff's written
narrative contained in her charge form does not reference any
facts relating to the alleged race and age discrimination and
only address her claims of sexual harassment and retaliation.
has also filed several letters with the Court, all written by
Plaintiff and filed subsequent to filing her Complaint, in
which she provides additional information regarding her suit
and includes a copy of the “notice of right to
sue” (or “right-to-sue” letter) that she
received from the EEOC, which is dated December 18, 2017.
See Record Document 18-2 at 2-3. In one letter filed
with the Court on May 31, 2018, Plaintiff states that she is
asserting claims of “discrimination, ”
“age/race discrimination, ” “sexual
harassment, ” and “harassment.”
See Record Document 14 at 2. However, as with her
narrative in her charge form, Plaintiff's actual
Complaint only alleges facts regarding sexual harassment and
retaliation and does not include any facts regarding age or
race discrimination, nor does it include any references
regarding her own age or race or that of anyone else.
See Record Document 1. Because Defendant's
motion only relates to Plaintiff's purported claims for
age and race discrimination, such claims are the only claims
at issue for purposes of the instant Memorandum Ruling.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Pleading and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Standards
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
requirements for pleadings that state a claim for relief,
requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” The standard for the adequacy of complaints
under Rule 8(a)(2) is now a “plausibility”
standard found in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and
its progeny. 550 U.S. 544, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007). Under this
standard, “factual allegations must be enough to raise
a right to relief above the speculative level . . . on the
assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true
(even if doubtful in fact).” Id. at 555-56,
127 S.Ct. at 1965. If a pleading only contains “labels
and conclusions” and “a formulaic recitation of
the elements of a cause of action, ” the pleading does
not meet the standards of Rule 8(a)(2). Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009)
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows parties to seek
dismissal of a party's pleading for failure to state a
claim upon which relief may be granted. In deciding a Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court generally may not
“go outside the pleadings." Colle v. Brazos
Cty., Tex., 981 F.2d 237, 243 (5th Cir. 1993). However,
a court may also rely upon "documents incorporated into
the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may
take judicial notice" in deciding a motion to dismiss.
Dorsey v. Portfolio Equities, Inc., 540 F.3d 333,
338 (5th Cir. 2008). Additionally, courts must accept all
allegations in a complaint as true. See Iqbal, 556
U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. However, courts do not have
to accept legal conclusions as facts. See id. Courts
considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) are only
obligated to allow those complaints that are facially
plausible under the Iqbal and Twombly
standard to survive such a motion. See id. at
678-79, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. If the complaint does not meet
this standard, it can be dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted. See id. Such
a dismissal ends the case "at the point of minimum
expenditure of time and money by the parties and the
court." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 558, 127 S.Ct. at
Prerequisites to Filing Employment Discrimination
order to file a valid federal employment discrimination claim
under both Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (“ADEA”), a plaintiff must first exhaust its
administrative remedies with the EEOC. See Taylor v.
Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378-79 (5th Cir.
2002); Menson v. City of Baton Rouge, 539 Fed.Appx.
433, 434 (5th Cir. 2013). Exhaustion occurs “when the
plaintiff files a timely charge with the EEOC and receives a
statutory notice of right to sue.” Taylor, 296
F.3d at 379 (citing Dao v. Auchan Hypermarket, 96
F.3d 787, 788-89 (5th Cir. 1996)). A plaintiff then has
ninety days from the receipt of the statutory notice of right
to sue in which to file suit against his or her employer.
See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). This ninety-day
filing period requirement is “strictly construed,
” even for pro se litigants. See
Taylor, 296 F.3d at 379; see also Washington v. City
of Gulfport, Miss., 351 Fed.Appx. 916, 917-18 (5th Cir.
2009). Courts within this Circuit have repeatedly dismissed
cases in which the plaintiff did not file a complaint until
after the expiration of the ninety-day limitations period.
See, e.g., Butler v. Orleans Parish School
Bd., No. 00-0845, 2001 WL 1135616, at *2-3 (E.D. La.
Sept. 25, 2001). Furthermore, “[a]lthough [the] filing
of an EEOC charge is not a jurisdictional prerequisite, it is
a precondition to filing suit in district court.”
See, e.g., Taylor, 296 F.3d at 379
Age Discrimination Claim
Plaintiff did not check the box for “AGE” on her
EEOC charge or reference any acts of age discrimination by
Defendant in her complaint, Plaintiff alleges an age
discrimination claim in a letter she filed with the Court on
May 31, 2018. See Record Document 14 at 2. Defendant
maintains that Plaintiff's age discrimination claim
should be dismissed for her failure to exhaust administrative
remedies and that Plaintiff's letter in which she alleges
age discrimination is neither sufficient to cure such failure
nor cure the untimeliness of her claim. See Record
Document 18-2 at 4-5. Defendant also argues that even if the
Court finds that Plaintiff is not procedurally ...