Shing v. Wal-Mart Corporation, CCB-16-322. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Maryland
Number: infdco20160509936
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 06, 2016
Latest Update: May 06, 2016
Summary: MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE , District Judge . Plaintiff Doreen Shing has sued defendant Wal-Mart Corporation alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Ms. Shing, who, according to her complaint, has cerebral palsy and other medical issues, was hired by Wal-Mart in 2015 but was terminated from that job less than two months later. The ADA requires that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the
Summary: MEMORANDUM CATHERINE C. BLAKE , District Judge . Plaintiff Doreen Shing has sued defendant Wal-Mart Corporation alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. Ms. Shing, who, according to her complaint, has cerebral palsy and other medical issues, was hired by Wal-Mart in 2015 but was terminated from that job less than two months later. The ADA requires that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the E..
More
MEMORANDUM
CATHERINE C. BLAKE, District Judge.
Plaintiff Doreen Shing has sued defendant Wal-Mart Corporation alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. Ms. Shing, who, according to her complaint, has cerebral palsy and other medical issues, was hired by Wal-Mart in 2015 but was terminated from that job less than two months later.
The ADA requires that a plaintiff exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before filing suit in court. Snead v. Board of Educ., 815 F.Supp.2d 889, 894 (D. Md. 2011); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a). Because Ms. Shing has failed to do so, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear her case. Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300-01 (4th Cir. 2009); see also Fox v. Gen. Motors Corp., 247 F.3d 169, 176 (4th Cir. 2001) (recognizing that "[b]ecause the ADA echoes and expressly refers to Title VII, and because the two statutes have the same purpose—the prohibition of illegal discrimination in employment—courts have routinely used Title VII precedent in ADA cases"). Accordingly, the defendant's motion to dismiss must be granted.
A separate Order follows.
Source: Leagle
