Filed: Sep. 29, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 29, 2015
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., asserting claims of discrimination concerning the denial of promotions. On September 1, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that the State Military Department, not the entity or entities named, is P
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., asserting claims of discrimination concerning the denial of promotions. On September 1, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that the State Military Department, not the entity or entities named, is Pl..
More
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.
On April 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., asserting claims of discrimination concerning the denial of promotions. On September 1, 2015, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), contending that the State Military Department, not the entity or entities named, is Plaintiff's employer for purposes of Title VII and that the Complaint does not "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Plaintiff did not file a response to the motion to dismiss, although given an opportunity to do so. (See Briefing Order (Doc. # 8).)
After careful consideration, the court finds that the arguments and authority cited in Defendant's motion to dismiss are well founded and that Defendant's motion to dismiss is due to be granted for the reasons articulated in its motion. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant's motion to dismiss (Doc. # 5) is GRANTED and that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
