United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
RULING AND ORDER
A. JACKSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court is the Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Claims or
Alternatively Rule 56 Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 10)
filed by Defendant, Coca-Cola Bottling Company United, Inc.
("CCBCU"). CCBCU seeks the dismissal of claims
brought by Marvin Brown ("Plaintiff). Oral Argument is
not required. For the following reasons, the Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 10) filed by CCBCU is DENIED.
matter arises from an incident occurring at Plaintiffs place
of work on November 5, 2016. (Doc. 7 at ¶ 9). Plaintiff
is a delivery driver for CCBCU. (Id. at ¶ 6).
After completing his first shift of the day, Plaintiff was
ordered to complete a "hot shot" and was told to
retrieve a handheld scheduling device that contained the
details of his new assignment. (Id. at ¶ 9-10).
Plaintiff claims that CCBCU's procedure requires that
once a supervisor completes a review of the materials needed
for the route, a red seal bearing multiple digits is placed
on the rear of the truck. (Id. at ¶ 11). The
last four digits are uploaded to a handheld device.
(Id. at ¶ 12). On November 5, 2016, the
assignment Plaintiff received did not contain the last four
digits of a seal number but instead read "KKK."
(Id. at ¶ 13). Two supervisors were present at
that time: Plaintiffs supervisor Kenny Clark, as well as Chad
McMichael. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 14).
filed a complaint regarding the incident in February 2017
with CCBCU's Human Resources manager Hope Zettlemore.
(Id. at ¶ 15). Plaintiff and Zettlemore showed
a photograph taken at the time of the incident to McMichael,
who responded that there "would not be any
retaliation." (Id. at ¶ 16).
months following Plaintiffs complaint to Human Resources,
Plaintiff alleges that he has been retaliated against.
(Id. at ¶ 17). Plaintiff complains of
unexpected assignments to less desirable shifts, not
receiving the raise he customarily received each year for the
last 16 years, and being made to take more shifts.
(Id. at ¶¶ 17-22).
filed this lawsuit against Defendant for violating Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title
VII") and the Louisiana Employment
Discrimination Law ("LEDL"). (Id. at
¶¶ 28, 32). Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's
management directed and participated in the unlawful conduct
by failing to prevent and promptly address any acts of race
discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation. (Id.
at ¶ 23). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant willfully
acted with malice and reckless indifference to Plaintiffs
federally protected rights. Id. Plaintiff also
alleges that he suffered from emotional distress,
humiliation, and mental anguish as a direct result of
Defendant's unlawful conduct. (Id. at ¶
24). Finally, Plaintiff alleges that he suffered loss of
enjoyment of life, inconvenience, and other non-pecuniary
losses and incurred attorneys' fees and costs as a direct
result of Defendant's unlawful conduct. (Id. at
moves for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the Amended Complaint
("Complaint") on four grounds: 1) Plaintiff has not
properly pled administrative exhaustion; 2) the Title VII
claim was not filed in a timely fashion; 3) Plaintiff did not
provide CCBCU with pre-suit notice of his LEDL claim and; 4)
the Complaint fails to set forth an actionable claim for
racial harassment under Title VII and the LEDL (Doc. 10-2 at
pp. 1, 4-7).
motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the sufficiency
of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule
8, which requires "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "To survive 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 face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). "Determining whether a
complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] ... a
context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to
draw on its judicial experience and common sense."
Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 679.
plausibility" exists "when the plaintiff pleads
factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable
inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Id. at 678 (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). Hence, the complaint need not set out
"detailed factual allegations," but something
"more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action" is
required. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. When conducting
its inquiry, the Court "accepts all well-pleaded facts
as true and views those facts in the light most favorable to
the plaintiff." Bustos v. Martini Club Inc.,
599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir. 2010).
does not require that discovery be completed prior to a court
issuing a ruling on a motion for summary judgment.
Washington v. Allstate Ins. Co., 901 F.2d 1281, 1285
(5th Cir. 1990). However, at this stage, the Court does not
have enough information to confidently render a ruling on
Defendant's motion for summary judgment, and finds that
discovery is necessary in this matter. Therefore, the Court
will not consider the Motion for Summary Judgment at this
time until discovery has been completed.
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Exhaustion of ...