United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division
Jeffery Bardwell, pro se
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
N. Stivers, United States District Court Judge
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (DN 10) and Plaintiff's Motion for
Reconsideration (DN 16). For the reasons set forth below,
Defendants' motion is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motion
effort to obtain employment at Aerotek, Inc.
(“Aerotek), Plaintiff Mark Bardwell
(“Plaintiff”) met with one of Aerotek's
recruiters, Grant Roberts (“Roberts”), for an
interview on November 11, 2016. (Compl. 2, DN 1). During that
interview, Plaintiff allegedly told Roberts that his criminal
record contained a false conviction for assault, but Roberts
nonetheless hired him to fulfill a temporary work assignment
for one of Aerotek's clients. (Compl. 5). Three days
later, Plaintiff arrived for work, but-just before
clock-in-“Roberts terminated [his] employment due to
the false assault charge.” (Compl. 5). Thereafter,
Plaintiff filed a charge against Aerotek with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (See
EEOC Docs., DN 7). In it, Plaintiff alleged facts identical
to those in the Complaint, but claimed that Aerotek
discriminated against him because of his disability. (EEOC
Docs. 13). The EEOC investigated Plaintiff's allegations
and found no evidence that Aerotek had violated 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964-but
nonetheless notified him of his right to sue. (EEOC Docs. 9).
on these events, Plaintiff filed suit against Aerotek and
Roberts (collectively, “Defendants”). (Compl.
1-2). Though the Complaint is not entirely clear, Plaintiff
appears to have alleged that Defendants' decision not to
hire-or to terminate-him gives rise to a Title VII claim for
retaliation. (Compl. 4). He stated as follows:
“Retaliation. Prior in an interview i [sic] informed
Aerotek of an assault at the V.A. center i [sic] was framed
for that is on my record. When the background, before
background check happened.” (Compl. 4).
then moved to dismiss the Complaint. (See Defs.' Mem.
Supp. Mot. Dismiss, DN 10-1 [hereinafter Defs.' Mot.
Dismiss]). In their motion, Defendants contend that dismissal
is appropriate because: (1) Plaintiff failed to raise a
retaliation claim before the EEOC, so that he did not exhaust
his administrative remedies with respect to that claim and
this Court therefore lacks jurisdiction over it; and (2) the
Complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. (Defs.' Mot. Dismiss 3-6). Defendants'
motion is ripe for adjudication.
action arises under the laws of the United States, and this
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
noted, Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and because it fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted. (Defs.' Mot.
Dismiss 3-6). The Court will address each argument in term.
to seeking relief in federal court on a claim of employment
discrimination, a Title VII claimant must exhaust his
administrative remedies. Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d
212, 217 (6th Cir. 2004); Seay v. Tenn. Valley
Auth., 340 F.Supp.2d 844, 848 (E.D. Tenn. 2004)
(citations omitted). As a corollary, federal courts lack
subject-matter jurisdiction over Title VII claims that have
not been “explicitly filed . . . in an EEOC charge or .
. . [cannot] reasonably be expected to grow out of the
EEOC's investigation of the charge.” Seay, 340
F.Supp.2d at 848.
filed an EEOC charge against Aerotek, but that charge did not
allege a retaliation claim. (See EEOC Docs. 13). Rather,
Plaintiff's EEOC charge only contains a claim for
disability discrimination. (EEOC Docs. 13). Specifically, his
EEOC paperwork states: “I believe I have been
discriminated against because of my disability . . . .”
(EEOC Docs. 13). PLAINTIFF has therefore failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation
claim. He has not “explicitly filed” an EEOC
charge alleging retaliation, and any investigation the EEOC
conducted into Plaintiff's disability discrimination
claim would not be expected to uncover his retaliation claim
because the facts set forth in his EEOC charge do not suggest
that he engaged in any conduct-such as challenging a
purportedly unlawful employment practice-that might give rise
to such a claim. Bray v. Palm Beach Co., 907 F.2d
150, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 11020, at *5 (6th Cir. 1990)
(noting that “the facts ...