Summary
A United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting in part a defendant's motion to dismiss and motion to strike in a pro se Title VII retaliation action. The recommendation concludes that the retaliation claim concerning the plaintiff's May 2020 termination was timely and adequately pleaded, while other claims should be dismissed as untimely. It also recommends striking an immaterial addendum and portions of the requested relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the first amended complaint satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 with respect to the retaliation claim.
- Whether the Title VII claims were timely under the ninety-day period following receipt of an EEOC right-to-sue notice.
- Whether later EEOC charges and right-to-sue notices rendered the retaliation claim based on the May 2020 termination untimely.
- Whether allegations concerning nonparty individuals and requests for relief beyond the scope of the action should be stricken under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).
Holdings
- Although the amended complaint was poorly organized, lengthy, and digressive, it satisfied Rule 8 because it gave defendant notice of the retaliation claim forming the primary basis of the suit.
- The retaliation claim concerning plaintiff's May 2020 termination and set forth in EEOC charge 555-2020-01236 was timely because plaintiff filed suit within ninety days after receiving the associated right-to-sue notice.
- The later EEOC charges did not make the earlier, pending charge concerning the May 2020 termination untimely or extend the limitations period, because the later charges involved different adverse actions and were filed before the right-to-sue notice on the second charge.
- All claims other than the retaliation claim set forth in EEOC charge 555-2020-01236 should be dismissed without leave to amend as untimely.
- The addendum and portions of the statement of demands should be stricken because they contained immaterial, irrelevant, scandalous, or otherwise improper matter and sought relief beyond the scope of the action.
Key quotations
“To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”” (at 2)
“Here, despite the chaff that surrounds it, there is a comprehensible statement of plaintiff’s claim at the core of the complaint.” (at 3)
“The function of the period is to act as a statute of limitations, and plaintiff’s actions neither extended nor circumvented it.” (at 4)
Factual background
Plaintiff and his wife were employed as professors by Los Rios Community College District beginning around August 8, 2018. Plaintiff alleged that his supervisor sexually harassed his wife and retaliated against both of them, after which the District conducted an internal investigation and terminated them on May 21, 2020. Plaintiff filed multiple EEOC charges; the charge at issue, 555-2020-01236, alleged retaliation for invoking Title VII rights and concerned the May 2020 termination. The EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice on May 9, 2023, and plaintiff filed this action on July 31, 2023.
Procedural history
The initial complaint was dismissed with leave to amend as noncompliant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, and defendant moved to dismiss it and to strike portions of it. The magistrate judge recommended that the retaliation claim concerning plaintiff's May 2020 termination, as stated in EEOC charge 555-2020-01236, proceed, while all other claims be dismissed without leave to amend as untimely; the recommendations were submitted to the assigned district judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).