Emma Rush v. State Arkansas DWS
876 F.3d 1123
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Emma Rush, a 54-year-old Black woman, applied for a promotion at the Arkansas Department of Workforce Services in November 2015 and was denied on December 9, 2015; she alleges discrimination based on sex, race, and age and that a younger white male was promoted.
- Rush sent an unverified letter to the EEOC received June 6, 2016; EEOC later requested verification and forms, and a Dismissal and Notice of Suit Rights was issued July 26, 2016.
- Rush mailed a verified EEOC Form 5 charge by certified mail on July 28, 2016, which the EEOC received July 30, 2016; she later filed a pro se district-court complaint alleging Title VII and ADEA claims and attached the EEOC correspondence.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding Rush failed to exhaust EEOC remedies because the initial submission was unverified; alternatively found pleading deficiencies under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); held ADEA claim barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity.
- Rush timely filed objections to the magistrate and attached the verified charge and USPS tracking; the district court adopted the magistrate’s report without a de novo review and dismissed; Rush appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rush exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit | Rush contends she filed a charge and received a right-to-sue notice (and later submitted a verified charge) | ADWS argued the initial EEOC submission was unverified, so exhaustion was lacking | Court: Likely exhausted; verified charge and right-to-sue cured any defect; dismissal for failure to exhaust was improper |
| Whether district court properly reviewed magistrate judge's recommendations after objections | Rush argued district court failed to conduct required de novo review of timely, specific objections | ADWS relied on magistrate's report and district court affirmation | Court: District court’s failure to perform de novo review was reversible error |
| Adequacy of Rush’s pro se complaint under Rule 8(a) | Rush’s pro se pleadings should be liberally construed and afforded leave to amend | ADWS asserted the complaint was too sparse to state a claim | Court: Pro se plaintiff should be allowed to amend; remand with directions to permit amendment |
| Viability of ADEA claim against state agency | Rush maintained ADEA claim | ADWS invoked Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity | Court: ADEA claim against the state agency barred by Eleventh Amendment; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Taxi Connection v. Dakota, Minn. & E. R.R. Corp., 513 F.3d 823 (8th Cir.) (standard of review for dismissal)
- Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr., 481 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir.) (pro se plaintiff’s assertion of EEOC filing and attachment of right-to-sue can preclude dismissal for failure to exhaust)
- Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (Sup. Ct.) (recognizing validity of EEOC regulation allowing amendment to cure defects)
- Hudson v. Gammon, 46 F.3d 785 (8th Cir.) (district court must perform de novo review of timely, specific objections to a magistrate’s report)
- Holowecki v. Federal Express Corp., 552 U.S. 389 (Sup. Ct.) (pro se and filing standards under administrative-exhaustion framework)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (Sup. Ct.) (pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard)
- Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (Sup. Ct.) (Eleventh Amendment bars certain ADEA suits against states)
- Bunch v. Univ. of Ark. Bd. of Trustees, 863 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.) (application of Eleventh Amendment immunity to state entities)