United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Louisville Division
Charles R. Simpson III, Senior Judge United States District
plaintiff, Mariela Vileinor, filed suit against her former
employer, Charter Comunications, LLC, in September 2015
alleging discrimination on the basis of her religion and
retaliation for reporting harassment in violation of the
Kentucky Civil Rights Act. (DN 1-1). Vileinor was hired by
Charter on November 17, 2014. She alleges that while she was
employed, she suffered discrimination because she wears a
headscarf in the practice of her Muslim faith and complained
about harassment by her supervisors who purportedly told her
that she could not wear it. Id. In an Amended
Complaint filed in October 2015, she alleges that she
suffered a workplace injury on September 26, 2015 which
required medical treatment and rendered her unable to work.
She sought workers compensation benefits after sustaining the
injury. Id. She alleges that she was terminated on
September 30, 2015 for having filed suit and for having
sought workers compensation benefits. Charter noted in its
Answers (DNs 1-1; 5) that Vileinor did not exhaust
administrative remedies prior to filing suit in the Jefferson
County, Kentucky, Circuit Court.
removed the action to this court under our diversity
jurisdiction. (DN 1). Vileinor moved to strike the
affirmative defenses denominated B, C, and N in Charter's
Answer to the Amended Complaint (DN 5):
B. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that they
are based on allegations which fall outside the scope of, or
are not reasonably related to, any charges filed with the
applicable administrative agencies.
C. Plaintiff's claims are barred to the extent that she
has failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
N. The imposition of punitive damages against Charter would
violate the Constitution of the United States of America
and/or the Constitution of Kentucky; moreover, Plaintiff has
not sought nor pleaded facts which would satisfy the standard
for such damages.
teleconference in December, 2015, the parties filed a Joint
Stipulation Relating to Certain Affirmative Defenses (DN 11)
in which Vileinor stipulated that (1) she was not seeking
relief under any federal law, (2) she had not filed a charge
with an administrative agency for any of the claims asserted
in this lawsuit, and (3) she was not seeking punitive
damages. Upon that agreement of stipulated facts by Vileinor,
Charter agreed to voluntarily withdraw affirmative defenses
B, C, and N. The Joint Stipulation further stated:
The Parties further agree that in the event Plaintiff amends
her pleadings to either add a federal claim and/or seek
punitive damages, Defendant will at that time be free to
reassert affirmative defenses B, C, and N, and any other
applicable affirmative defenses.
(DN 11, ¶ 5). The motion to strike was further deemed
moot by reason of the stipulation. (DNs 11, ¶ 6; 12).
for Vileinor was permitted to withdraw on July 21, 2016.
Vileinor was afforded three months in which to retain new
counsel or notify the court of her intention to proceed
pro se. (DNs 24, 25, 27). On October 25, 2016,
Vileinor notified the court that shed intended to proceed
pro se in the matter. (DN 32). Vileinor participated
in an April, 2017 status conference and began filing pro
se pleadings, including:
DN 39 Complaint
DN 40 Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
DN 41 Motion to Appoint Counsel
DN 42 Motion for Lien on Charter ...