Brooks v. Midwest Heart Group
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18685
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Brooks, African American female, was terminated from Midwest Heart Group in April 2007.
- She sued in 2010 alleging race, sex, and age discrimination and retaliation under Title VII.
- Brooks asserted she timely filed an EEOC charge on May 10, 2007; attached MCHR right-to-sue notice showing dual filing.
- Midwest argued she failed to file a timely EEOC charge within 300 days of termination; district court agreed.
- District court treated Midwest's motion as a Rule 56 motion improperly, and dismissed some claims while not others.
- This court reverses in part, affirming in part and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly treated the motion to dismiss as summary judgment | Brooks argues proper Rule 12(d) conversion was required. | Midwest contends standard Rule 12(b)(6) suffices given pleadings. | District court erred by not converting. |
| Whether Brooks exhausted all Title VII claims under the 300-day rule | Charge timely and potentially cured; EEOC form may date to 2007. | Only race and sex claims exhausted; age/retaliation unexhausted. | Race and sex claims eligible; age and retaliation unexhausted. |
| Whether the May 10, 2007 Charge Information Form constitutes a timely EEOC charge | Form represents a proper charge dated May 10, 2007. | Date stamp suggests filing in 2010, triggering 300-day limit. | Form could satisfy exhaustion if timely; procedural posture favors Brooks. |
| Whether equitable tolling could save timely exhaustion | Equitable tolling available due to EEOC inaction and Brooks's efforts. | Court should not toll based on alleged dilatory conduct. | District court failed to address tolling; remand to consider tolling. |
| Whether race and sex claims should be reinstated while age/retaliation remain dismissed | Race/sex claims were properly pled and exhausted. | Age/retaliation claims were not exhausted and must be dismissed. | Race and sex claims affirmed on remand; age and retaliation affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Dormire, 636 F.3d 976 (8th Cir.2011) (de novo review of dismissal; Rule 12(b)(6) conversion if outside pleadings)
- Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d 218 (8th Cir.1994) (administrative exhaustion requires timely EEOC charge)
- Worthington v. Union Pac. R.R., 948 F.2d 477 (8th Cir.1991) (300-day filing period for deferral states)
- Olson v. Rembrandt Printing Co., 511 F.2d 1228 (8th Cir.1975) ( Missouri deferral state; 300-day rule applicability)
- Jensen v. Henderson, 315 F.3d 854 (8th Cir.2002) (timeliness of exhaustion questions > dismissible only if no fact questions)
- Laouini v. CLM Freight Lines, Inc., 586 F.3d 473 (7th Cir.2009) (exhaustion limits; EEOC charge scope governs claims)
- Tart v. Hill Behan Lumber Co., 31 F.3d 668 (8th Cir.1994) (claims may not exceed scope of EEOC charge)
- Wallin v. Minn. Dep't of Corrs., 153 F.3d 681 (8th Cir.1998) (exhaustion scope includes only related claims)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 535 U.S. 106 (U.S.1992) (EEOC regulations can cure defects in a charge)
- Miller v. Runyon, 32 F.3d 386 (8th Cir.1994) (equitable tolling in Title VII actions)
- Ritchie v. St. Louis Jewish Light, 630 F.3d 713 (8th Cir.2011) (pleading standards; plausibility required)
- Casazza v. Kiser, 313 F.3d 414 (8th Cir.2002) (conversion notice when relying on outside materials)
- Casazza v. Kiser, 313 F.3d 414 (8th Cir.2002) (conversion under Rule 12(d) when outside pleadings used)