Tonya Lockhart v. Holiday Inn Express Southwind
531 F. App'x 544
6th Cir.2013Background
- Lockhart, an African-American female, was a driver/houseman at Holiday Inn Express Southwind in Memphis and was fired on June 30, 2008 for breaking clock-out rules while two Caucasian male housemen were not fired.
- On July 9, 2008, she filed an EEOC charge alleging race and sex discrimination under Title VII, naming Holiday Inn Express Hotel as the respondent.
- The EEOC issued a right-to-sue letter on May 29, 2009; Lockhart filed suit in August 2009 accusing Holiday Inn Express Southwind of discrimination.
- In March 2010 the district court instructed her to amend the complaint to identify the employer; she amended in April 2010 and sought to add several individuals and MNY Partnership.
- Service of process occurred in July 2011 after the district court granted leave to amend; counsel appeared for Lockhart and she later added THRA claims in April 2012.
- The district court later dismissed the Title VII claims against Purohit and the Jains, citing failure to name in the EEOC charge and time-bar defenses; the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did failure to name defendants in the EEOC charge bar Title VII claims? | Lockhart argues identity of interest between named and unnamed parties allows claims to proceed. | Defendants contend failure to name bars Title VII claims and cannot be cured. | Remand to determine identity-of-interest viability; not precluded at this stage. |
| Can added defendants relate back under Rule 15(c)(1)(C)? | Amendment relates back because claim arose from original pleading and notice was provided. | Time-barred unless relation back is satisfied and good cause shown. | Remand for district court to evaluate good-cause and relation-back criteria. |
Key Cases Cited
- Romain v. Kurek, 836 F.2d 241 (6th Cir. 1987) (identity-of-interest and conciliation purposes in EEOC context)
- Eggleston v. Chicago Journeymen Plumbers’ Local Union No. 130, 657 F.2d 890 (7th Cir. 1981) (identity-of-interest test for unnamed party)
- Glus v. G.C. Murphy Co., 562 F.2d 880 (3rd Cir. 1977) (factors for identity-of-interest in EEOC context)
- Alexander v. Local 496, Laborers’ Int’l Union of N. Am., 177 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) (identification of interest framework)
- Conlin v. MERS, 714 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2013) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) decisions)