George Williams v. Target Stores
479 F. App'x 26
8th Cir.2012Background
- George Williams, pro se, sued Target Stores for race discrimination in promotion and terms of employment.
- Form complaint lists June 2009 as the discrimination date; attached narrative cites other dates.
- Attached EEOC/MCHR charge states discrimination occurred June 1, 2009, to May 12, 2010.
- District court dismissed as untimely, relying on the June 2009 date from the form complaint.
- Court considered whether charges should supersede complaint dates or be read together with the complaint.
- Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with liberal pleading and exhaustion principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether timeliness must follow the form complaint date. | Williams Argues form date cannot control given attached charge dates. | Target Argues charge content not superseded by complaint. | No; read together with charge dates, liberally construed. |
| Whether the complaint and attached charge must be read together for exhaustion. | Williams contends district court failed to liberally construe pleadings. | Target contends formal complaint suffices for timeliness analysis. | Yes; read together; burden on Target to prove exhaustion. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for further steps. | Williams seeks remand for merits consideration. | Target disputes remand necessity unless timely exhaustion is resolved. | Remand for district court to consider merits consistent with ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coons v. Mineta, 410 F.3d 1036 (8th Cir. 2005) (de novo review of exhaustion dismissal)
- Holland v. Sam's Club, 487 F.3d 641 (8th Cir. 2007) (MCHR is appropriate state agency for exhaustion)
- Eckert v. Titan Tire Corp., 514 F.3d 801 (8th Cir. 2008) (read pleadings liberally when ruling on motions to dismiss)
- Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785 (8th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings afforded liberal construction)
- Salas v. Wis. Dep't of Corr., 493 F.3d 913 (7th Cir. 2007) (failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense; tie must go to plaintiff)
- Miles v. Bellfontaine Habilitation Ctr., 481 F.3d 1106 (8th Cir. 2007) (failure to exhaust treated as affirmative defense)
- Williams v. Runyon, 130 F.3d 568 (3d Cir. 1997) (defendant bears burden of proving failure to exhaust)
- Lafarge North America, Inc. v. Discovery Group, L.L.C., 574 F.3d 973 (8th Cir. 2009) (declining to affirm on unaddressed alternative theories on appeal)