Park v. Fiserv Trust Company
1:10-cv-00189
D. Colo.Dec 7, 2010Background
- This matter involves Lori L. Park's federal and state-law claims against Fiserv entities and related defendants in the District of Colorado.
- The court considers Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(1) and (6) motion to dismiss the Complaint, following a Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation.
- The Magistrate found Park failed to exhaust Title VII and ADA administrative remedies for certain claims, and recommended dismissal of those claims.
- Park contends she exhausted remedies via an EEOC Charge dated September 15, 2008, and that some claims can proceed as reasonably related to that charge.
- The Court accepts the Recommendation, dismisses all federal claims for lack of exhaustion or failure to state a claim, and declines supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims.
- The Court dismisses the case with judgment in favor of Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Park exhausted administrative remedies for her Title VII and ADA claims | Park exhausted via the EEOC Charge. | Exhaustion not shown for the non-retaliation/hostile work environment claims. | Unexhausted Title VII/ADA claims dismissed. |
| Whether Park's retaliation and hostile environment claims state a claim | Facts support retaliation and hostile environment. | Complaint fails to show actionable adverse actions or severe/pervasive conduct. | Claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6). Dismissed. |
| Whether amendment should be permitted to cure deficient allegations | Amendment could cure deficiencies. | Amendment would be futile; no viable claim can be stated. | Leave to amend denied; amendment unlikely to yield a viable claim. |
| Whether the district court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | State claims should proceed alongside federal claims. | With federal claims dismissed, supplemental jurisdiction should be declined. | Declines supplemental jurisdiction; state-law claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Runyon, 91 F.3d 1398 (10th Cir. 1996) (exhaustion is a jurisdictional prerequisite for Title VII claims)
- Sampson v. Civiletti, 632 F.2d 860 (4th Cir. 1980) (discussion of exhaustion prerequisite)
- McBride v. CITGO Petroleum Corp., 281 F.3d 1099 (10th Cir. 2002) (burden on plaintiff to show exhaustion by competent evidence)
- Haynes v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, 456 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2006) (timeliness of exhaustion not jurisdictional; tolling considerations)
- Piercy v. Maketa, 480 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2007) (showing of retaliatory conduct and adverse action necessary)
- Davis v. United States Postal Serv., 142 F.3d 1334 (10th Cir. 1998) (pervasive discriminatory environment standard)
- Mitchell v. City and County of Denver, 112 F. App'x 662 (10th Cir. 2004) (hostile environment standard applied to workplace)
- DeWalt v. Meredith Corp., 288 F. App’x 484 (10th Cir. 2008) (unpublished; exhaustion-related discussion)
- Jones v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 502 F.3d 1176 (10th Cir. 2007) (reasonableness of exhaustion and relation to charge)