Reketta L. Montgomery v. Acquisition Experts, LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted Acquisition Experts, LLC's Rule 12(b)(6) motion and dismissed Reketta L. Montgomery's employment-discrimination complaint in its entirety. The court held that several claims were unexhausted and that the remaining Title VII and ADA claims were not plausibly pleaded, including claims based on disability, race, adverse employment action, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. The court also denied Montgomery's motion to amend her opposition and directed the clerk to close the case.

Holdings

1. The court denied plaintiff's motion to file a third memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss because she had already filed a timely opposition, had filed an additional opposition without leave, and failed to establish good cause for another filing.
2. Plaintiff's Title VII sex-discrimination, retaliation, and failure-to-promote claims were procedurally barred because they were not stated in, or naturally related to, her EEOC charge. Her hostile-work-environment claim was sufficiently exhausted because the charge mentioned a hostile work environment and identified the alleged harasser.
3. Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that she was a qualified individual with a disability, and her ADA failure-to-accommodate, disparate-treatment, and hostile-work-environment claims were therefore dismissed.
4. Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege Title VII disparate-treatment and wrongful-termination claims because she did not adequately allege a qualifying adverse employment action, discriminatory motivation, or facts supporting the required elements of those claims.
5. Plaintiff failed to plausibly allege a Title VII or ADA hostile-work-environment claim and therefore could not rely on constructive discharge as the adverse employment action supporting her Title VII claims.
6. Plaintiff could not add factual allegations or new claims through her opposition brief, and her alternative request for leave to amend the complaint was denied because she did not file a separate motion or proposed amended complaint.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiff should be permitted to file a third memorandum opposing the motion to dismiss.
2. Whether plaintiff exhausted her Title VII and ADA claims through her EEOC charge.
3. Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged that she was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA.
4. Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged adverse employment action, constructive discharge, disparate treatment, wrongful termination, hostile work environment, or failure to accommodate.
5. Whether plaintiff could add factual allegations or new claims through her opposition brief or obtain leave to amend without filing a separate motion and proposed amended complaint.

Disposition

dismissed