Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Kansas granted defendants’ motion to dismiss an employment action brought by Donnie Lee Rakestraw, Jr. The court dismissed the ADA claims with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, dismissed the FLSA and OSHA retaliation claims for failure to state a claim or lack of a private right of action, and dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction. The court also denied plaintiff’s motions for equitable tolling and leave to file a surreply.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Plaintiff established extraordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling of the ADA EEOC charge-filing deadline.
- Whether Plaintiff's ADA claims should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- Whether Plaintiff adequately pleaded an FLSA overtime claim based on unpaid time spent putting on and removing protective gear.
- Whether OSHA section 11(c), 29 U.S.C. § 660(c), creates a private right of action for retaliatory discharge.
- Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims after dismissing all federal claims.
- Whether Plaintiff showed good cause for leave to file a surreply.
Holdings
- Plaintiff failed to establish the extraordinary circumstances required for equitable tolling. Disagreement with or incorrect advice from counsel, lack of legal knowledge, pro se status, and unsupported allegations of employer concealment did not justify tolling.
- Plaintiff's ADA claims for failure to accommodate, disability discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment were dismissed with prejudice because Plaintiff admitted that he had not filed an EEOC charge or obtained a right-to-sue letter, and the filing period could not be equitably tolled.
- Plaintiff failed to state an FLSA overtime claim because he did not allege that he worked more than 40 hours in any particular workweek without receiving overtime compensation.
- OSHA section 11(c), 29 U.S.C. § 660(c), does not create a private right of action for retaliatory discharge.
- After dismissing all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's remaining state-law claims and dismissed them without prejudice.
- Plaintiff was not entitled to file a surreply because he failed to show the rare circumstances and good cause required by District of Kansas Rule 7.1.
Key quotations
“Equitable tolling effectively extends an otherwise discrete limitations period set by Congress.”
“The FLSA requires overtime pay of one and a half times an employee’s hourly wage for every hour worked over 40 hours in a single week.”
“Plaintiff fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted, and his FLSA claim is dismissed.”
“Therefore, as there is no private right of action for an OSHA retaliation claim and any amendment would be futile, Plaintiff’s OSHA retaliation claim is dismissed.”
Factual background
Plaintiff worked for The Hershey Company at its Edgerton, Kansas, facility from 2023 until his termination in 2024. He alleged that neuropathy made prolonged standing on concrete painful and that Hershey failed to provide a requested rubber mat as a workplace accommodation, after which he developed a foot ulcer and was terminated. He also alleged that he was not paid for approximately 10 to 15 minutes per shift spent putting on and removing protective gear. Plaintiff acknowledged that he had not timely filed an EEOC charge and had not obtained a right-to-sue letter.
Procedural history
Plaintiff filed this action on November 20, 2025, and later filed a second amended complaint asserting ADA, FLSA, OSHA, and state-law claims. Defendants moved to dismiss. The court concluded that Plaintiff had not exhausted his ADA claims, failed to plead an FLSA overtime claim, and could not maintain a private OSHA retaliation action. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.