Pickar v. Grouper Acquisition Company, LLC
1:25-cv-00055
N.D. OhioApr 29, 2025Background
- Mary L. Pickar was employed by Shiloh Industries, later claimed to be known as Megalodon Midco, LLC ('Megalodon'), from June 2015 until her termination in October 2023 after less than a year as Production Manager.
- Pickar filed discrimination charges with both the EEOC and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission in May 2024, naming Shiloh as her employer but not Megalodon.
- Her EEOC charge alleged sex, age, and retaliation discrimination, with specific workplace incidents cited, and she later received a right-to-sue letter.
- Pickar filed suit in January 2025, advancing claims for gender discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and related state-law claims; Megalodon moved to dismiss Counts II–VI for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and not being named in her charges.
- The procedural posture is Megalodon's Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, specifically regarding administrative exhaustion requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Naming Defendant in Admin. Filings | Megalodon should remain as discovery is needed | Not named as employer in administrative filings | Dismissal not appropriate at Rule 12 stage; discovery allowed |
| Exhaustion of Claims Other Than Sex Discrimination | Admin. charges should be liberally construed | Only sex discrimination checked/exhausted | Plaintiff arguably exhausted remedies for all claims |
| Plausibility of Allegations for All Counts | Sufficient factual allegations in complaint | Complaint lacks requisite facts for all claims | Allegations sufficient to survive motion to dismiss |
| Potential Sanctions if Defendant Improperly Named | N/A | Improper naming requires dismissal and fees | Plaintiff risks sanctions if Megalodon is later dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaints must contain more than labels and conclusions)
- Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 695 F.3d 531 (standards for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Weigel v. Baptist Hosp. of East Tennessee, 302 F.3d 367 (EEOC complaint scope governs federal complaint scope)
- Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 212 (facts in EEOC charge, not just boxes checked, set complaint scope)
- Randolph v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 453 F.3d 724 (Title VII exhaustion requirement to be liberally construed)