Barrentine v. New Jersey Transit
44 F. Supp. 3d 530
D.N.J.2014Background
- Barrentine, a Paterson, NJ resident, sues NJT, Piper, ATU Local 822, Ariel, Osborn, and Ross under Title VII and several state-law theories.
- SAC alleges race-based discrimination, hostile environment, retaliation, and related negligence and emotional-distress claims.
- EEOC charge issued April 30, 2012; Barrentine filed suit June 27, 2012; right-to-sue letter accompanies the charge.
- Alleged incidents include racial epithets by Piper and Osborn (2009–2011), go-go bar encounter, and disciplinary actions culminating in suspension.
- ATU represented Barrentine through grievance steps; arbitrability/arbitration decision in July 2011 did not proceed to arbitration.
- NJT and Piper move to dismiss; ATU and others move to dismiss with Rule 12(b)(1)/(b)(6); court treats ATU/individuals’ motion as Rule 12(c) request for judgment on the pleadings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exhaustion of Title VII claims | Barrentine exhausted through EEOC charge naming NJT; scope may include individuals. | Charge did not name Piper, ATU, Ariel, Osborn, or Ross; exhaustion fails for those claims. | Exhaustion found for individual defendants; ATU not exhausted; jurisdiction lacking for ATU claim. |
| Title VII against NJT and individuals | Discriminatory termination and related conduct violate Title VII. | Plaintiff fails to allege a prima facie case and discriminatory nexus to termination; individuals not liable. | Title VII claims dismissed as to NJT and individuals. |
| Title VII claim against ATU | ATU discriminated by not pursuing arbitration; harmed Barrentine’s employment. | ATU’s decision not to arbitrate is not shown to be discriminatory; claim outside EEOC scope. | Title VII claim against ATU dismissed; outside exhaustion scope and fail to state a claim. |
| State-law claims under supplemental jurisdiction | State-law claims remain if federal claims survive or not. | With no substantial federal question, court should dismiss state-law claims under §1367(c)(3). | State-law claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Antol v. Perry, 82 F.3d 1291 (3d Cir.1996) (scope of EEOC charge governs subsequent suit)
- Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (S. Ct. 2007) (plausibility required for relief; no formulaic recitation)
- Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (S. Ct. 2009) (plausibility pleading standard; context-specific)
- Hicks v. ABT Assocs., Inc., 572 F.2d 960 (3d Cir.1978) (jurisdictional exhaustion considerations for Title VII)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for prima facie discrimination claim)
- Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co., 482 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1987) (union liability under Title VII for discriminatory practices)
- Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 100 F.3d 1061 (3d Cir.1996) (Definition of employer under Title VII; no individual liability)
- Umland v. PLANCO Fin. Serv., Inc., 542 F.3d 59 (3d Cir.2008) (pleading standard for plausible claims; Twombly/Iqbal framework)
- National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (each discriminatory act is a separate actionable practice)