John Jean-Pierre v. Angela Schwers
682 F. App'x 145
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Pro se plaintiff John Jean‑Pierre sued Pearson Education and an officer under Title VII for race‑based employment discrimination related to a police investigation at Pearson’s premises on August 22, 2013.
- Complaint alleged he was ‘‘singled out’’ for the investigation and vaguely claimed discriminatory acts continued afterward; did not plead facts showing Pearson’s racial motivation.
- He filed an EEOC charge on June 12, 2015 and received a right‑to‑sue letter in July 2015.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing failure to exhaust because the EEOC filing was more than 300 days after the alleged discriminatory act.
- District Court dismissed for failure to state a plausible Title VII claim; plaintiff filed an affidavit but did not add facts showing discriminatory motive or adverse employment action.
- Third Circuit affirmed, holding the complaint lacked facts to support an inference of intentional discrimination and amendment would have been futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / exhaustion (300‑day rule) | Jean‑Pierre alleged he filed EEOC charge within time and sought equitable tolling on appeal | Defendants: charge was filed more than 300 days after the last alleged act; untimely | Court treated Rule 9(c) pleading as met but dismissed on merits; did not resolve equitable tolling because plaintiff failed to state a claim |
| Sufficiency of Title VII pleading (prima facie elements) | Alleged he was singled out for investigation and experienced continuing discrimination | Defendants: complaint lacked facts showing adverse employment action or racially discriminatory motive | Dismissed: complaint failed to plead facts permitting a plausible inference of intentional discrimination |
| Adverse employment action / continuing violations | Jean‑Pierre broadly claimed continuing discriminatory acts beyond Aug 2013 | Defendants: no specific adverse acts pleaded; continuing acts not described as adverse | Held: plaintiff failed to identify adverse employment actions or facts making continuing violations plausible |
| Opportunity to amend | Jean‑Pierre argued the District Court should have allowed amendment before dismissal with prejudice | Defendants: dismissal was proper given insufficiency and delay | Held: amendment would be futile because plaintiff failed to cure defects after motion to dismiss and on appeal; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Makky v. Chertoff, 541 F.3d 205 (elements to plead prima facie Title VII discrimination)
- W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85 (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal)
- Cardenas v. Massey, 269 F.3d 251 (300‑day EEOC filing requirement in New Jersey)
- Hoffman v. Boeing, 596 F.2d 683 (timely EEOC filing is condition precedent)
- Fletcher‑Harlee Corp. v. Pote Concrete Contractors, Inc., 482 F.3d 247 (leave to amend rule and futility analysis)
- Great W. Mining & Mineral Co. v. Fox Rothschild LLP, 615 F.3d 159 (futility as reason to deny amendment)
- Hildebrand v. Allegheny Cty., 757 F.3d 99 (Rule 9(c) pleading on conditions precedent satisfies notice requirement)