United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
GRAHAM C. MULLEN, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Horizon Coach Lines' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. (Doc. No. 9.) Defendant asks the Court to dismiss Plaintiff Albert Herbert's Complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and also pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff Albert Herbert filed this lawsuit on January 7, 2015, using the Western District's pre-printed complaint form, alleging that he was discriminated against based on his race, his sex, and his age. (Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff asserts that this discrimination resulted in general harassment and the termination of his employment with Defendant Horizon Coach Lines ("Horizon"). (Id. )
The Complaint illustrates several instances in which Plaintiff believes Horizon discriminated against him. He first says he experienced discrimination, "[b]ecause [I] speak up for myself. And [I] tell the [truth] about what [I] see [and] feel." (Compl. at 4.) Second, he alleges that "they only look at it [their] way, [and] they [were] only on the client side. Because the bus was [four] hours late getting to them." (Id. ) Third, he claims "I [believe] they didn't [give] me a fair chance. Because I did all they [asked] me to do." (Id. ) Finally, Plaintiff alleges: "They left me on the bus with nowhere to go [and] rest while the bus was getting fixed or [while I was waiting] for another bus so [I] was tired." (Id. )
Prior to this lawsuit, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC on November 14, 2014 alleging only sex discrimination. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) The EEOC issued Plaintiff a right-to-sue letter on November 18, 2014. (Doc. No. 4.) In response to Plaintiff's lawsuit, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 11, 2015 arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and that the Complaint fails to state a claim. (Doc. No. 9.) On March 12, 2015, the Court sent Plaintiff a Roseboro notice informing him of his obligation to respond to Defendant's motion. (Doc. No. 11.) Plaintiff's deadline has passed, and this Court is now prepared to rule on this matter.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides that a case should be dismissed in the absence of subject matter jurisdiction, and "[t]he plaintiff has the burden of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists." Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999.) "Before a plaintiff has standing to file a suit under Title VII, he must exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC." Bryant v. Bell Atl. Md., Inc., 288 F.3d 124, 132 (4th Cir. 2002); see also 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1.) The scope of the federal lawsuit is limited by the contents of the EEOC charge. Jones v. Calvert Grp., Ltd., 551 F.3d 297, 300 (4th Cir. 2009).
Exhausting administrative remedies is a "jurisdictional prerequisite to adjudication in federal courts [and] a procedural prerequisite to bringing suit." Sloop v. Mem'l Mission Hosp., Inc., 198 F.3d 147, 148 (4th Cir. 1999). Notably, when a plaintiff fails to exhaust his administrative remedies concerning a Title VII claim, the federal court is deprived of subject matter jurisdiction over the claim. Id. Claims that fall outside the scope of the EEOC charge are procedurally barred. Dennis v. County of Fairfax, 55 F.3d 151, 156 (4th Cir. 1995).
When faced with a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, courts are instructed to "accept as true all well-pleaded allegations and... view the complaint in a light most favorable to the plaintiff." Mylan Labs, Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). After "assum[ing] the veracity" of a plaintiff's factual allegations, the court is to "determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Thus, a "complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the facts alleged] is improbable, and that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.'" Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007) (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). However, the court "need not accept as true unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." Eastern Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. LLP, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000).
Finally, a complaint filed pro se "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, " and "is to be liberally construed.'" Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). However, a pro se litigant must still plead "more than labels and conclusions." Giarratano v. Johnson, 521 F.3d 298, 304 n.5 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
Horizon argues that this case should be dismissed for two reasons. First, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over Mr. Herbert's claims of race and age discrimination. (Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s Compl., Doc. No. 10 at 3-5.) And second, because all of Mr. Herbert's claims fall short ...