Daoud v. City of Wilmington
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142050
D. Del.2012Background
- Daoud sues the City of Wilmington alleging discrimination and retaliation based on race, national origin, ancestry, ethnicity, disability, and religion under Title VII, the ADA, §1981, and the DDEA; he was not promoted in 2007 allegedly due to discriminatory reasons.
- Daoud filed EEOC charges: '967 (March 28, 2008) alleging discrimination/retaliation related to non-promotion; EEOC issued right-to-sue on August 19, 2010; he filed suit November 18, 2010.
- During 2011 the City terminated Daoud; he filed a second EEOC charge, '342, alleging discrimination/retaliation related to termination; EEOC issued a February 28, 2012 determination but no right-to-sue letter on that charge.
- Daoud worked as a Sanitation Driver since 2000; Leary (a white male with allegedly fewer qualifications) was hired for the 2007 promotion; Daoud complained to Jones about Leary’s qualifications and the City’s handling.
- Daoud attempted service on the City via Traylor, a City employee not shown to be an authorized agent for service; the court addresses service and then analyzes the Rule 12(b)(6) merits, with a potential dismissal and a show-cause order on supplemental jurisdiction.
- The court ultimately grants in part and denies in part the City’s motion to dismiss, concluding the federal claims are time-barred or inadequately pled, and directs Daoud to show cause regarding supplemental jurisdiction for state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of '967 Title VII/ADA claims | Daoud exhausted administrative remedies. | Claims outside 300-day window are time-barred. | Time-barred for non-promotion acts within 300 days. |
| Timeliness/exhaustion for '342 Title VII/ADA claims | EEOC determination noted; remedies not exhausted. | No right-to-sue letter issued for '342 charge. | Claims related to termination not exhausted; dismissed. |
| §1981 against state actors | §1981 provides rights against others under contract framework. | §1981 does not apply to state actors; exclusive remedy is §1983. | Dismissed §1981 claims. |
| §1983 claims and Monell liability | Daoud asserts municipal liability. | No evidence of official policy or custom; time-barred for pre-2008 acts; Monell not shown. | §1983 claims dismissed; no Monell basis shown; some termination-related claim not time-barred but insufficient to state a Monell claim. |
| Service of process compliance | Efforts to serve City communicated; pro se status. | Service on Traylor insufficient as non-agent for City. | Insufficient service; plaintiff may attempt proper service; court analyzes merits nonetheless. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Railroad Pension... v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (discrete acts; 300-day limit; hostile environment notes)
- McGovern v. City of Philadelphia, 554 F.3d 114 (3d Cir. 2009) (§1981 against state actors not applicable; §1983 remedy)
- Ayres v. Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A., 99 F.3d 565 (3d Cir. 1996) (pro se pleadings; adherence to procedural rules)
- Monell v. Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (local government liability requires policy or custom)
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (timeliness; continuing practice vs. discrete acts)
- Ebbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 319 F.3d 103 (3d Cir. 2003) (administrative exhaustion requirements under ADA/Title VII)