Filed: Oct. 24, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 24, 2014
Summary: RULING SHELLY D. DICK, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Dismissal, or Alternatively, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 1 filed by Defendant, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (hereinafter "Dupont"). In response to DuPont's Motion, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Memorandum in Opposition 2 and a First Amended Complaint. 3 Thereafter, DuPont filed a Reply. 4 At this early juncture in this lawsuit with discovery deadlines only recently having been set,
Summary: RULING SHELLY D. DICK, District Judge. Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Dismissal, or Alternatively, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 1 filed by Defendant, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (hereinafter "Dupont"). In response to DuPont's Motion, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Memorandum in Opposition 2 and a First Amended Complaint. 3 Thereafter, DuPont filed a Reply. 4 At this early juncture in this lawsuit with discovery deadlines only recently having been set, ..
More
RULING
SHELLY D. DICK, District Judge.
Before the Court is a Motion for Partial Dismissal, or Alternatively, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment1 filed by Defendant, E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (hereinafter "Dupont"). In response to DuPont's Motion, Plaintiff simultaneously filed a Memorandum in Opposition2 and a First Amended Complaint.3 Thereafter, DuPont filed a Reply.4
At this early juncture in this lawsuit with discovery deadlines only recently having been set, the Court declines to convert DuPont's motion into a summary judgment motion.5 Therefore, for the purpose of DuPont's Motion for Partial Dismissal, the Court will only evaluate the allegations in the Plaintiff's Complaints, disregarding any documents attached to the parties' respective memoranda.6
In its Motion, DuPont seeks dismissal of Plaintiff Leo Scott, Jr.'s Complaint on two grounds. First, DuPont argues that the race discrimination claims in Plaintiff's December 5, 2012 EEOC Charge are duplicative of those claims in his October 14, 2010 EEOC Charge. DuPont contends that because Plaintiff failed to file suit within 90 days of receiving his right to sue letter, which was forwarded to Plaintiff around October 15, 2010, he lost the right to sue for these claims. Therefore, it is DuPont's position that Plaintiff's race discrimination claims are time barred and must be dismissed as a matter of law. DuPont also argues that because Plaintiff failed to allege his wrongful termination claim in his December 5, 2012, EEOC Charge, and failed to include such an allegation in a subsequent amendment or to timely file a separate charge following his termination, Plaintiff's claim is barred under Title VII and must be dismissed.
After reviewing Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, the Court finds that it cures the errors of which DuPont complains. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that he does not seek to recover for any allegations of racial misconduct on the part of DuPont "which falls outside of any applicable statute of limitations, outside of any period for which Plaintiff may recover for continuing discrimination, [or] outside of any time period within which to file suit or tolling period."7 Additionally, the Court finds that Plaintiff has asserted factual allegations of racial discrimination beyond October 15, 2010. As for Plaintiff's wrongful termination claim, Plaintiff specifically alleges that he amended and supplemented his December 5, 2012 EEOC claim in 2013 following his termination from DuPont. Therefore, the Court finds that DuPont's arguments in support of its motion for partial dismissal are now moot.
Accordingly, DuPont's Motion for Partial Dismissal, or Alternatively, Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.8
