Patton v. DeJoy

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California screened a pro se plaintiff’s first amended employment-discrimination complaint against the Postmaster General. The court concluded that the complaint failed to state a claim and that the plaintiff’s Title VII claims may be barred by failure to timely contact an EEO counselor and possibly by untimely filing in federal court. The court dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend and allowed thirty days to file a second amended complaint or voluntarily dismiss the action.

Holdings

1. A complaint screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) must contain sufficient factual allegations to state a plausible claim for relief; legal conclusions and allegations showing only a possibility of misconduct are insufficient.
2. A federal employee asserting Title VII discrimination must pursue administrative relief and generally initiate contact with an EEO counselor within forty-five days of the allegedly discriminatory matter; failure to comply may bar the discrimination claim, although the requirement is not jurisdictional and may be subject to waiver, estoppel, or equitable tolling.
3. An amended complaint supersedes the prior complaint and must be complete in itself without incorporating the prior pleading by reference.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the first amended complaint stated a plausible federal employment-discrimination claim.
2. Whether plaintiff's failure to contact an EEO counselor within forty-five days of the alleged discriminatory events barred her Title VII claims.
3. Whether plaintiff should receive leave to amend to allege facts supporting waiver, estoppel, equitable tolling, or otherwise cure the pleading deficiencies.
4. Whether the action may also be untimely because plaintiff filed it more than ninety days after the EEOC's final decision.

Disposition

other