Barbara Carter v. Target Corporation
541 F. App'x 413
5th Cir.2013Background
- Carter, Black female, worked for Target 2002–2011; supervisor allegedly asked her to file false reports against Black coworkers; she refused and workload increased after she complained via Hotline.
- Carter filed Hotline Complaint alleging increased workload; subsequently received increased workload, false disciplinary actions, and poor evaluations.
- On Aug 26, 2010, Carter filed EEOC/LCHR Charge 43 alleging retaliation and later amended to include racial discrimination; last discriminatory act cited as July 2, 2010.
- Carter was fired on Mar 23, 2011; May 28, 2011 she amended Charge 43 to include racial discrimination and filed Charge 20 for retaliation based on Charge 43; no right-to-sue letter for Charge 20.
- District court treated Charges 23 and 43 as the bases for Counts I and II, relied on EEOC documents outside the complaint, and dismissed Counts I and II; later vacated parts relating to Charge 20.
- This appeal challenges whether the district court properly dismissed Title VII claims as time-barred and whether EEOC documents outside the complaint can be considered on a motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Court may consider EEOC charging documents attached to motion. | Carter argues documents outside the complaint cannot be used. | Target contends documents referenced in complaint are central and proper for dismissal. | Yes; documents attached and central may be considered. |
| Whether Count I (racial discrimination/retaliation) is time-barred due to nonexistence of Charge 23. | Charge 23 existed; exhaustion alleged. | Charge 23 does not exist; no exhaustion. | Count I affirmed as time-barred. |
| Whether Count II (retaliation) based on Charge 43 is time-barred and properly analyzed. | Charge 43 supports retaliation claim. | Charge 43 does not support retaliation for the firing; time-bar issues. | Affirmed dismissal of Count II; subsequent related issues vacated. |
| Whether amended Charge 43 relating to racial discrimination relates back to original charge. | Amendment relates back to original charge. | Amendment presents new legal theory; does not relate back. | Racial discrimination claim time-barred; amended claim does not relate back. |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, 224 F.3d 496 (5th Cir. 2000) (documents attached to motion may form part of pleadings if referred to in complaint and central to claim)
- Manning v. Chevron Chem. Co., 332 F.3d 874 (5th Cir. 2003) (amendments that cure defects relate back to original charge)
- Connor v. La. Dep’t of Health & Hosp., 247 F. App’x 480 (5th Cir. 2007) (timeliness of EEOC charge filings; deferral state considerations)
- Haynes v. Pennzoil Co., 207 F.3d 296 (5th Cir. 2000) (protected activity includes opposing unlawful Title VII practices)
- Moore v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 150 F. App’x 315 (5th Cir. 2005) (grievances not necessarily protected activity under Title VII)
- Haire v. Bd. of Supervisors of La. State Univ., 719 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2013) (protected activity for EEOC charges)