Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bardwell v. Aerotek, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky, Bowling Green Division

June 1, 2018

MARK JEFFERY BARDWELL PLAINTIFF
v.
AEROTEK, INC., et al. DEFENDANT

          Mark Jeffery Bardwell, pro se

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Greg N. Stivers, United States District Court Judge

         This 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 is DENIED.[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         In an 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).

         Based 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.[2] (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).

         Defendants 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.

         II. JURISDICTION

         This action arises under the laws of the United States, and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

         III. DISCUSSION

         As 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.

         A. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

         Prior 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.

         Penrod 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.