Hardaway v. Hartford Public Works Department
879 F.3d 486
| 2d Cir. | 2018Background
- Curtis Hardaway, an African American former Hartford Public Works employee of 20+ years, alleged race discrimination and retaliation after he reported workplace safety violations to OSHA and filed multiple OSHA complaints.
- Hardaway alleges he was harassed, called derogatory names, denied overtime, suspended, demoted, and ultimately fired because of his complaints; he claims white coworkers were not treated similarly.
- Hardaway filed suit in federal court asserting Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims and a state-law negligent infliction of emotional distress claim.
- The district court sua sponte dismissed Hardaway’s third amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), reasoning that he failed to plead administrative exhaustion with the EEOC and therefore his Title VII claims were not viable; it declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state claim.
- The Second Circuit found the district court had otherwise credited pleadings supporting Title VII claims and held the dismissal erroneous because exhaustion is an affirmative defense that defendants must plead and prove.
- The Second Circuit reversed dismissal of Counts I, III (Title VII claims) and Count V (state negligent infliction of emotional distress) and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title VII administrative exhaustion must be pleaded by plaintiff in the complaint | Hardaway alleged facts supporting his claims; he need not plead EEOC exhaustion as a prerequisite to survive dismissal | District court/defendant argued failure to plead administrative exhaustion justified dismissal | Court held exhaustion is an affirmative defense for defendants to plead and prove; plaintiff need not plead exhaustion to survive dismissal |
| Whether failure to file or allege EEOC charge is jurisdictional or waivable | Hardaway implicitly contended filing requirements should not bar his federal suit when facts otherwise support claims | Defendant treated exhaustion as a precondition that bars suit if not alleged | Court held EEOC filing is not jurisdictional but akin to a statute of limitations, subject to waiver, tolling, estoppel; thus defendants bear burden |
| Whether sua sponte dismissal under §1915(e)(2) was proper for failure to plead exhaustion | Hardaway argued dismissal was improper because he stated viable Title VII claims | District court dismissed sua sponte for lack of pleaded exhaustion | Court held sua sponte dismissal was erroneous because exhaustion is an affirmative defense and Hardaway otherwise stated viable claims |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claim after reversal of federal dismissal | Hardaway sought to proceed on state claim tied to same facts | Defendant had relied on dismissal of federal claims to oppose supplemental jurisdiction | Court held supplemental jurisdiction is proper because the state claim shares a common nucleus of operative fact with the revived Title VII claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1982) (EEOC charge filing is not jurisdictional and is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling)
- Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (U.S. 2007) (exhaustion may be treated as an affirmative defense; pleading requirements absence supports treating exhaustion as defendant’s burden)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (complaint must plead plausible claim to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (standard for plausibility and reasonable inferences from pleaded facts)
- Fowlkes v. Ironworkers Local 40, 790 F.3d 378 (2d Cir. 2015) (failure to exhaust is not a jurisdictional bar and is subject to equitable defenses)
- Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (administrative exhaustion is an affirmative defense; defendant bears burden of pleading and proving it)