Bhatti v. SSM Health Care of Oklahoma Inc, 5:19-cv-00655

Plaintiff Edwin Bhatti sued SSM Health Care of Oklahoma (Saint Anthony Hospital) alleging employment discrimination under Title VII, ADA, ADEA, OADA, and §1981 (§1981 claim not challenged).
Defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the Title VII, ADA, ADEA, and OADA claims as untimely based on the EEOC charge the parties submitted.
The EEOC charge lists March 23, 2018 as the last date of discrimination and shows Bhatti signed the charge on March 29, 2019 (EEOC receipt stamped April 3, 2019), which falls outside the 300-day (Title VII/ADA/ADEA) and 180-day (OADA) filing windows.
Bhatti argued equitable tolling, alleging he uploaded a detailed charge April 15, 2018 using an EEOC charge number and later received an EEOC Form 5 in March 2019 which he signed and returned on March 29, 2019; those factual assertions were made in his response (not in the complaint).
The court considered the EEOC charge (document central to the complaint) and denied the motion to dismiss, concluding: (1) the authority requiring a plaintiff to plead facts supporting equitable tolling at the 12(b)(6) stage is not persuasive, and (2) factual disputes about EEOC interactions and possible tolling are better resolved with evidence and discovery.
The court rejected defendant’s request to convert the motion to a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement and explicitly left open adjudication of timeliness/tolling at a later evidentiary stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claims are barred for failure to file timely EEOC charge	Bhatti says equitable tolling applies because of EEOC interactions (uploaded charge in April 2018; later signed Form 5 in Mar 2019)	SSM says the EEOC charge shows last discriminatory act March 23, 2018 and the charge was filed/received in 2019—outside statutory periods, so claims untimely	Denied dismissal; factual/tolling dispute left for later resolution (discovery/evidence)
Whether plaintiff must plead facts supporting equitable tolling to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion	Bhatti did not plead those facts in the complaint but provided them in his response; he need not meet a heightened pleading burden at this stage	SSM contends plaintiff bears the burden to plead facts justifying equitable tolling at the pleading stage (citing Dumas)	Court found the cited authority unpersuasive and declined to impose a pleading burden requiring detailed tolling facts at 12(b)(6)
Whether the motion should be converted to a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement	Bhatti’s response supplied the tolling theory and facts; discovery is the proper vehicle	SSM sought conversion in its reply, arguing the complaint is vague about tolling facts	Court rejected conversion to Rule 12(e); ordered discovery rather than requiring a more definite statement

Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982) (EEOC charge requirement is not jurisdictional and is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling)
Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider, 493 F.3d 1174 (10th Cir. 2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must cross line from conceivable to plausible)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (court assumes truth of well-pleaded facts but disregards legal conclusions)
Dumas v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., [citation="453 F. App'x 819"] (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished; discussed as persuasive authority on equitable tolling pleading/evidentiary issues)
Jenkins v. Mabus, 646 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2011) (discussed regarding evidentiary findings required to prove EEOC misleading conduct)
Thuc Trans Sonic Indus. Servs., Inc. v. 767 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (W.D. Okla. 2011) (noting 300-day EEOC filing period in deferral states)