2:20-cv-01458 | E.D. Wis. | Nov 6, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
OVELL THOMAS,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 20-cv-1458-pp
v.
DOLLAR TREE,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING JUDGE JOSEPH’S RECOMMENDATION (DKT. NO. 7),
CONSTRUING LETTER AS OBJECTION (DKT. NO. 8), OVERRULING
OBJECTION AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE
TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
I. Background
The plaintiff, a resident of Kileen, Texas, worked at a Dollar Tree in
Appleton, Wisconsin from 2016 until he was fired in March 2019. Dkt. No. 1.
He filed this complaint against Dollar Tree, Kevin Schrimshaw and Steve T.,
alleging that the store manager started “playing” with the plaintiff’s hours
because of the plaintiff’s race. Id. According to the plaintiff, Dollar Tree
replaced him with a white female, causing him humiliation, lost wages and
emotional damage. Id.
Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph granted the plaintiff leave to proceed
without prepaying the filing fee but ordered him to file an amended complaint
along with his notice of right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. Dkt. No. 5. Judge
Joseph construed the plaintiff’s allegations as a claim that he was subjected to
1
Case 2:20-cv-01458-PP Filed 11/06/20 Page 1 of 4 Document 9
employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and
explained that before a plaintiff can file an employment discrimination case
under Title VII, the law requires that he must “exhaust” his administrative
remedies by filing a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and proving to the court that he did so by providing the
court with a “right to sue letter” from the EEOC. Dkt. No. 5 at 2.
The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 13, 2020. Dkt. No.
6. This time, he named only Dollar Tree as a defendant; the amended
complaint included more facts than the original complaint, but it said nothing
about exhausting his remedies or receiving a right-to-sue letter. Id. Judge
Joseph has recommended that this court dismiss the amended complaint,
noting that the plaintiff “again fail[ed] to allege that he has exhausted his
administrative remedies.” Dkt. No. 7 at 2.
II. Objection
On October 26, 2020, the court received a letter from the plaintiff, saying
that he was writing to “dispute that I have witnesses that can back up my
case.” Dkt. No. 8 at 1. The plaintiff identifies Ray, Leta and Michelle and
provides their respective phone numbers. Id. He asks the court to call these
individuals because they have information about “how [the plaintiff] was and
they part of this.” Id. He explains that he’s never gone through anything like
this and that being discriminated against is humiliating, embarrassing and
disappointing. He concludes by saying, “I wish you can find in your heart to
help me please.” Id.
2
Case 2:20-cv-01458-PP Filed 11/06/20 Page 2 of 4 Document 9
The court construes this letter as an objection to Judge Joseph’s
recommendation. It will review the complaint de novo. See 28 U.S.C.
§636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of
the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which an
objection is made.”).
III. Analysis
The plaintiff has alleged discrimination and retaliation in connection with
the defendant’s decision to fire him. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits
employers from discriminating based on race. But Title VII requires that a
person first file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunities
Commission (EEOC) before suing in federal court. Tyson v. Gannett Co., 538
F.3d 781, 783 (7th Cir. 2008). This requirement serves two purposes—it gives
the EEOC an opportunity to investigate and “settle the dispute through
conference, conciliation and persuasion” and it “gives the employer some
warning of the conduct about which the employee is aggrieved.” Cheek v. W.
and S. Life Ins. Co., 31 F.3d 497" date_filed="1994-08-01" court="7th Cir." case_name="Loretta Cheek v. Western and Southern Life Insurance Company">31 F.3d 497, 500 (7th Cir. 1994) (quoting Rush v.
McDonald's Corp., 966 F.2d 1104" date_filed="1992-06-29" court="7th Cir." case_name="Patricia D. Rush v. McDonald Corporation, Sharon Funston, and William R. Rose">966 F.2d 1104, 1110 (7th Cir.1992)). If the EEOC decides
not to investigate or sue on the plaintiff’s behalf, he then can file his case in
federal court.
The filing of a timely complaint is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit
in federal court; it normally is considered an affirmative defense. Mosley v.
Board of Educ. of City of Chi., 434 F.3d 527" date_filed="2006-01-04" court="7th Cir." case_name="Lillian L. Mosely v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago">434 F.3d 527, 533 (7th Cir. 2006). Dismissal for
failure to file an EEOC charge may be warranted, however, where it is apparent
3
Case 2:20-cv-01458-PP Filed 11/06/20 Page 3 of 4 Document 9
that the plaintiff has failed to exhaust. See id.; James v. Get Fresh Produce,
Inc., No. 18 C 4788, 2019 WL 1382076, *4 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2019) (dismissing
after the plaintiff had an opportunity to amend because the plaintiff had not
shown that he filed timely EEOC charge alleging racial discrimination).
The plaintiff has had three opportunities to provide a notice of right to
sue letter or prove that he’d gone to the EEOC before coming to federal court—
the complaint, the amended complaint and his objection. He has not provided
such proof and he has not explained to the court why he did not go to the
EEOC first. If, as the court suspects, the plaintiff did not file an EEOC claim
first before filing this federal case, he has not exhausted his remedies and he
cannot proceed in federal court.
The court ADOPTS Judge Joseph’s recommendation. Dkt. No. 7.
The court CONSTRUES the plaintiff’s letter as an objection and
OVERRULES it. Dkt. No. 8
The court ORDERS this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. A
dismissal without prejudice means that the plaintiff can file his suit in federal
court once he has exhausted his administrative remedies. The clerk will enter
judgment accordingly.
Dated in Milwaukee, Wisconsin this 6th day of November, 2020.
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________________
HON. PAMELA PEPPER
Chief United States District Judge
4
Case 2:20-cv-01458-PP Filed 11/06/20 Page 4 of 4 Document 9