Townsend v. Rockwell Automation, 1:18-cv-2742. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190618e79
Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 17, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 17, 2019
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 20] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Faith Townsend alleged she suffered racial discrimination while working for Defendant Rockwell Automation and brought claims under Title VII. 1 These claims related to two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charges. 2 The Court dismissed Townsend's claims relating to the first charge as untimely. 3 On the second charge, Townsend did not show that she had exhausted her administrative remedies by first obt
Summary: OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Doc. 20] JAMES S. GWIN , District Judge . Faith Townsend alleged she suffered racial discrimination while working for Defendant Rockwell Automation and brought claims under Title VII. 1 These claims related to two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charges. 2 The Court dismissed Townsend's claims relating to the first charge as untimely. 3 On the second charge, Townsend did not show that she had exhausted her administrative remedies by first obta..
More
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Doc. 20]
JAMES S. GWIN, District Judge.
Faith Townsend alleged she suffered racial discrimination while working for Defendant Rockwell Automation and brought claims under Title VII.1 These claims related to two Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") charges.2
The Court dismissed Townsend's claims relating to the first charge as untimely.3 On the second charge, Townsend did not show that she had exhausted her administrative remedies by first obtaining an EEOC right-to-sue letter. Thus, the Court dismissed claims relating to the second charge without prejudice.4
Plaintiff Townsend now moves to reopen the case, EEOC right-to-sue letter in hand.5 The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to reopen and REOPENS the case for those claims athorized by the September 25, 2018 EEOC right-to-sue letter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Doc. 1. Plaintiff also brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the Court dismissed those claims as Townsend failed to allege the case involved state action. Doc. 10 at 3.
2. Id.
3. Doc. 17 at 3.
4. Id.
5. Doc. 20. Defendant does not oppose.
Source: Leagle
