# Cooper v. Embassy Suites by Hilton

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · July 24, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233448

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** July 24, 2020
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233448

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DISTRICT

TIFFANY C. COOPER, )
Plaintiff,
Vv. No. 4:20-CV-46 RLW
EMBASSY SUITES BY HILTON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim. In its motion, Defendant Embassy Suites by Hilton (“Embassy Suites”)! moves to
dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies with regard to her claim of race discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII’). In the alternative, Defendant argues Plaintiff fails
to plead any facts to support her retaliation claim under Title VII, and she fails to assert any facts
to support a claim of wrongful termination. Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s motion to
dismiss in a timely manner, and on April 15, 2020, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause,
ordering Plaintiff to show case, in writing, as to why she failed to respond to Defendant’s motion.
On April 22, 2020, Plaintiff filed a letter as a response to Defendant’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiff
did not respond to the Order to Show Cause or indicate why she was late in filing her response to

'Defendant notes in its Motion to Dismiss that its proper name is Embassy Suites
Management LLC, not Embassy Suites by Hilton.

]

the motion to dismiss. Defendant filed a motion to strike Plaintiff's response, to which Plaintiff did
not respond.
For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss, without
prejudice, and order Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint on the Court’s Employment
Discrimination Complaint form. The Court will also deny Defendant’s motion to strike.
Background
Plaintiff initially filed suit against Embassy Suites in the Circuit Court of St. Louis City,
Missouri, on December 4, 2019. Plaintiffs Petition, which is a two-page hand-written letter,
contains a narrative in which she describes the circumstances of her termination of employment
from Embassy Suites. In her narrative, Plaintiff also states that she had a grievance “with the
Union Rep,” and that she was retaliated against numerous times before September 9, 2019. (ECF
No. 3 at 2). “Every time I ask for a Grievance Union meeting, here comes all the false statements
and write ups.” Id. Plaintiff also alleges “Mark Brown is very selective in his employees and
always have [sic] played favoritism between employee [sic] meaning people of my color had [one]
chance while other races get unlimited chances before they are terminated.” Id. Plaintiff refers to
no laws or statutes in her Petition and does not specify the relief she is seeking.
Plaintiff did attach to her Petition a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) dated September 9, 2019, and her charge of discrimination,
which she dual filed with the EEOC and the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (““MCHR”).
Her charge of discrimination is directed at Embassy Suites by Hilton for discrimination that took
place between January 31, 2019, and September 6, 2019. Plaintiff only checked the box for
“retaliation” when asked on what grounds her discrimination was based.

In the narrative portion of the charge, Plaintiff wrote:
On 4/1/2018, I was hired by the above-named employer as a Housekeeper. Monica
Johnson, Executive Housekeeper, was my immediate supervisor. After I
complained of mistreatment, I was retaliated against by being disciplined and
discharged.
In 1/2019, I wrote a statement to my Union Representative, Kim Last Name
Unknown, about mistreatment at my place of employment. Subsequently, I
received numerous write ups that caused my termination.
For the above stated reason, I believe that I was disciplined and discharged in
retaliation, after engaging in protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
(ECF No. 3, Ex. 2).
On January 10, 2020, Defendant removed the case to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1331 and § 1441. Defendant maintains this Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction
because Plaintiff is bringing a claim under Title VII. Following removal, Defendant filed its Rule
12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, which is presently at bar.
Discussion
The Court declines address the merits of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss because there are
fundamental problems with Plaintiff's Petition that prevent the Court from evaluating Defendant’s
motion, namely it is unclear what claim(s) she is asserting and what relief she seeks. Pro se
pleadings are to be liberally construed and are held to less stringent standards than those drafted
by an attorney, Johnson v. Arden, 614 F.3d 785, 798 (8th Cir. 2010); Smith v. St. Bernards □□□□□
Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 1254, 1255 (8th Cir. 1994), but they must not be conclusory and must state
sufficient facts which, when taken as true, support the claims advanced. Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d
912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004). That said, a pro se litigant is not excused from complying with procedural

rules, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and specifically Rule 8. Brown v. Frey, 806
F.2d 801, 804 (8th Cir. 1986),
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Petition finds that it does not meet the basic
requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs Petition is a narrative
in the form of a letter. It does not set forth “a short and plain statement” of her claim showing that
she “is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Defendant removed on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction, but it is unclear under which law or laws Plaintiff is bringing suit. In the
Petition itself there is no reference to any law or statute. Plaintiff referred to Title VII in her charge
of discrimination, which was attached to the Petition, but Title VII is not mentioned in the text of
the Petition. Moreover, in her Petition Plaintiff describes retaliation related to the filing of union
grievances, but it is unclear whether she intends to pursue a retaliation claim under applicable labor
law.
The Petition is also defective because it does not contain “a demand for the relief sought.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(3). It is impossible to ascertain if Plaintiff is seeking money damages or
equitable relief, such as an injunction or declaratory relief. The Petition is defective because it
does not specify the relief Plaintiff seeks by filing suit. Id.
In addition, the Petition does not meet the basic requirements of Rule 10 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure in that the Petition does not have a caption that names the parties Plaintiff
is suing; it does not have a title; and the claims are not in numbered paragraphs.
In light of the fact that Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and this case was removed from state
court to federal court, the Court will deny, without prejudice, Defendant’s motion to dismiss and
allow Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that conforms with the pleading requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff must submit the amended complaint on a court-

provided form, and the amended complaint must comply with Rules 8 and 10 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. In her amended complaint, Plaintiff must state the full name of all the
defendants against whom she desires to bring a claim. Defendant Embassy Suites has indicated
that it was not sued under its proper name, and Plaintiff should correct the name of this Defendant.
Plaintiff is cautioned that the filing of an amended complaint replaces her Petition, and so it must
include all claims she wishes to bring. E.g., In re Wireless Telephone Federal Cost Recovery Fees
Litigation, 396 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2005). If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this
Memorandum and Order and file an Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss this action
without prejudice and without further notice.
Plaintiff is also warned that although she is representing herself pro se, she is not excused
from complying with the Court’s orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules.
See Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996); see also Faretta
v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 934-35 n.46 (1975) (pro se litigant must comply with relevant rules
of procedure).” In addition to the defects in her Petition, Plaintiff's response to Defendant’s motion
to dismiss did not have a caption or title, and it was untimely. Plaintiff also did not respond to the
Court’s Order to Show Cause. In the future, all documents Plaintiff submits for filing must include
a caption, title, and Plaintiff's signature and contact information. Plaintiff must communicate with
the Court in writing by motion or memorandum only, not letters, and Plaintiff's filings must be
timely. To file a document out of time, Plaintiff must file a motion for leave and show good cause
as to why she cannot meet the filing deadline. And importantly, Plaintiff must comply with all

*Links to this Court’s Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available
on the Court’s Internet website, http://www.moed.uscourts.gov.

orders of this Court. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders or to follow the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this Court may result in dismissal of this case.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED, without
prejudice. [ECF No. 11]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Strike is DENIED. [ECF No.
15]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall mail to Plaintiff a blank
Employment Discrimination Complaint form.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff shall submit an amended complaint in accordance with the
instructions set forth herein.
If Plaintiff fails to timely comply with this Memorandum and Order and file an
Amended Complaint, the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice and without
further notice.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated tis ay of July, 2020.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10233448. Public record. Not legal advice.