United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
CHARLES E. LEE
ADVANCE AUTO PARTS
PEREZ-MONTES MAG. JUDGE.
the court are Defendant Advance Auto Parts' motions to
dismiss or, alternatively, motions for summary judgment.
(Doc. 9 and 45). Defendant seeks dismissal of pro se
Plaintiff Charles Lee's ("Lee") complaint for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and
failure to file a timely charge with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). For the reasons
expressed herein, the Defendant's motion is
11, 2018, Lee filed a complaint on a court generated form
entitled "Complaint Under Section 706(f) of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964." (Doc. 1). Therein, Lee indicated he
filed a charge with the EEOC; received a right to sue notice;
and received a copy of the EEOC's determination.
Thereafter, he attached nearly 90 pages of documents which
appear to comprise the EEOC file regarding his charge. No
formal statement regarding his claims nor any demand for
relief accompanied his filing.
to the attached EEOC file, Lee filed a formal Charge of
Discrimination ("Charge") with the EEOC on July 21,
2016, in which he claimed he was subjected to religious
discrimination. Lee asserted he began working at Advance Auto
Parts on February 6, 2015 and applied for a Parts Pro
position at that time. However, he withdrew his application
when he determined the position required "more
work" than the position for which he was hired, and the
pay was commensurate. Later, Lee asked his manager, Danny
Smith, to reconsider him for the Parts Pro position. Smith
told Lee he would not be offered the position because he
refused to work on Sundays, an arrangement Lee had with a
prior manager that Smith refused to honor. When Lee
complained about Smith to the District Manager, Smith
retaliated by cutting Lee's hours. Finally, Lee alleged
in his Charge that he applied for and was denied the
Commercial Parts position; however, Lee fails to assert a
reason for the denial.
Auto Parts filed its first motion to dismiss or in the
alternative motion for summary judgment (Doc. 9) asserting
Lee's complaint should be dismissed because he failed to
comply with Rule 8 and failed to exhaust his administrative
remedies. Advance also posits that his claims are time
responded by seeking leave to amend his complaint on two
occasions. (Doc. 13 and 29). The court allowed Lee to file
both amended complaints. In his first amended complaint, Lee
amended "by asking for a monetary maximum amount allowed
for violating our agreement for me being able to have Sundays
off and being retaliated against after filing charge though
the EEOC." (Doc. 13). In his second amended complaint,
Lee amended "by adding a dollar amount to my law suit in
the amount of 80 million dollars.... for discrimination of my
religious beliefs, violating agreement that was agreed upon
my employment, retaliation upon me after I file charges with
the EEOC." (Doc. 19). No other statements, allegations
or claims were asserted in either of the amendments.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Motion to Dismiss
may grant a motion to dismiss for "failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted" under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A pleading states a claim for relief
when, inter alia, it contains a "short and
plain statement.. .showing that the pleader is entitled to
relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2).
withstand a motion to dismiss, "a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true," to
"state a claim to relief that is plausible on its fact.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 664 (2009)
(citation omitted). A claim is facially plausible when it
contains sufficient factual contend for the court "to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged." Id. Plausibility
does not equate to possibility or probability; it lies
somewhere in between. Id. Plausibility simply calls
for enough factual allegations to raise a reasonable
expectation that discovery will reveal evidence to support
the elements of the claim. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). The court must view
all well pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the
plaintiff. Unmaliciously Francise, LLC. v. Barrie,
819 F.3d 170 174(5thCir.2016).
Federal Rule 8
8(a)(2) governs the requirements for pleadings that state a
claim for relief. Specifically, the rule requires the
pleading contain "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Id. As stated supra, Lee does not provide
any statement regarding his claim. Instead he attached his
EEOC file. Though this format is clearly not in compliance
with Rule 8(a)(2), Rule 8(e) provides "[p]leadings must