Anderson v. SSM Healthcare Corporate Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

EASTERN DIVISION

TERESA ANDERSON, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) No. 4:20-CV-1462-SEP

)

SSM HEALTHCARE CORPORATE )

OFFICE, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District

Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Doc. [2]. Upon consideration of the financial

information provided with the application, the Court finds that Plaintiff is financially unable to

pay any portion of the filing fee. Therefore, Plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. Additionally, for the reasons discussed below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claim

for discrimination based on gender because this claim is not like or reasonably related to the

claims outlined in Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination. For the remaining claims, the Court will

direct the Clerk of Court to issue process or cause process to issue upon Defendant SSM

Healthcare Corporate Office.

The Complaint and Charge of Discrimination

Plaintiff is a self-represented litigant who brings this action under Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”). Using a Court-

provided employment discrimination form complaint, she alleges race (African American) and

gender (female) discrimination against her former employer, SSM Healthcare Corporate Office

−1−

(“SSM”). Under the section to indicate the alleged discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff checked the

boxes for termination of employment and retaliation and wrote in “toxic-hostile workplace

environment.”

Plaintiff states she was hired by SSM on or around May 5, 2019, as a Product Specialist

and later filled the role of Application Analysis. She claims she was the only African-American

female under the supervision of John Thomas, the Executive Director of Information Technology.

She alleges that her coworker Carrie Stockamp “was very rude and nasty, and hollered at [her] on

several occasions and refused to train [her] adequately.” She further alleges that she was “locked

out of the office after lunch several times and ignored by [her] coworkers.” Plaintiff claims she

informed SSM’s human resources department and management about her treatment and

submitted eight separate complaints, but no changes were made. On or around July 17, 2020,

Mr. Thomas informed her that her job was being eliminated due to COVID-19. Plaintiff claims

her discharge was actually in retaliation for the complaints she submitted regarding her treatment,

and she was harassed and poorly trained because of her race and sex as an African American

female.

Plaintiff seeks $2,000,000 in actual damages, $2,500,000 in punitive damages, and a court

order that SSM implement a diversity training program.

Attached to Plaintiff’s complaint is a right to sue letter from the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and her Charge of Discrimination. Doc. [1-2]. In the

Charge, Plaintiff named SSM as the respondent and checked the boxes indicating she was

discriminated based on race and retaliation. She did not check the box for “sex.” In the

“Particulars” section of the Charge, Plaintiff repeated the allegations from the Statement of the

Claim of the instant complaint.

−2−

Plaintiff also attached to the complaint a summary of her grievances she submitted to

SSM management and/or the human resources department; a U.S. Department of Labor

Complaint Form; a transcript of a meeting between Plaintiff and her supervisor, Amy

Lindenbusch, regarding the conduct of her coworkers and alleged hostile workplace; and a list of

issues she encountered during her employment at SSM. Docs. [1-1], [1-3]. In the last

attachment, Plaintiff asserts she was qualified for the position for which SSM hired her, stating

that she worked for Monsanto and Bayer for thirteen (13) years before being “heavily recruited by

Michelle Russell, Recruiter for SSM Health.” Doc. [1-3].

Legal Standard

The Court is required to dismiss a complaint filed in forma pauperis if it is frivolous, is

malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against

a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). To state a claim for

relief, a complaint must plead more than “legal conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the

elements of a cause of action [that are] supported by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v.

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). A plaintiff must demonstrate a plausible claim for relief, which

is more than a “mere possibility of misconduct.” Id. at 679. “A claim has facial plausibility

when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference

that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678. Determining whether a

complaint states a plausible claim for relief is a context-specific task that requires the reviewing

court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. at 679.

When reviewing a self-represented litigant’s complaint under Section 1915, the Court

accepts the well-pleaded facts as true, White v. Clark, 750 F.2d 721, 722 (8th Cir. 1984), and

−3−

liberally construes the complaint. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007); Haines v. Kerner,

404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A “liberal construction” means that if the essence of an allegation is

discernible, the district court should construe the plaintiff’s complaint in a way that permits his or

her claim to be considered within the proper legal framework. Solomon v. Petray, 795 F.3d 777,

787 (8th Cir. 2015). However, even self-represented complaints must allege facts that, if true,

state a claim for relief as a matter of law. Martin v. Aubuchon, 623 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir.

1980). See also Stone v. Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004) (refusing to supply

additional facts or to construct a legal theory for the self-represented plaintiff that assumed facts

that had not been pleaded).

Discussion

Having reviewed the Complaint and its attachments, including the Charge of

Discrimination and the Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC, the Court finds that Plaintiff has

sufficiently alleged discrimination and hostile work environment based on race, as well as

retaliation, for those claims to survive initial review.

The Court further finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for hostile work

environment based on gender; however, her gender discrimination claim will be dismissed for

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Plaintiff did not check the box for “sex” as a basis for

discrimination in her Charge, and in the body of her Charge, her gender-based allegations related

to harassment: “I believe I was harassed and poorly trained because of my race and sex, African

American female[.]” Doc. [1-2] at 3.

As a precondition to filing suit in federal court, Title VII requires a plaintiff to exhaust all

administrative remedies. See Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832 (1976). “A

−4−

plaintiff may seek relief for any discrimination that grows out of or is like or reasonably related to

the substance of the allegations in the administrative charge.” Dorsey v. Pinnacle Automation

Co., 278 F.3d 830, 838 (8th Cir. 2002). Since a person filing EEOC charges typically lacks legal

training, the charges are interpreted liberally. Cobb v. Stringer, 850 F.2d 356, 359 (8th Cir.

1988). Nevertheless, to allow “a complaint to encompass allegations outside the ambit of the

predicate EEOC charge would circumscribe the EEOC’s investigatory and conciliatory role, as

well as deprive the charged party of notice of the charge, as surely as would an initial failure to

file a timely EEOC charge.” Williams v. Little Rock Mun. Water Works, 21 F.3d 218, 223 (8th

Cir. 1994). Therefore, a plaintiff’s claims of employment discrimination in her complaint “may

be as broad as the scope of the EEOC investigation which reasonably could be expected to result

from the administrative charge.” Parisi v. Boeing Co., 400 F.3d 583, 585 (8th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination is not “like or reasonably related to” her claim

of discrimination based on race; nor is it “like or reasonably related to” her claim of a hostile

work environment based on gender. Dorsey, 278 F.3d at 838-39 (holding that discriminatory

actions are not reasonably related to harassment). The EEOC did not investigate a claim of

gender discrimination, nor could one have reasonably expected it to, given Plaintiff’s failure to

allege such discrimination in her Charge. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the gender

discrimination claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Plaintiff has also filed a form Motion for Appointment of a Pro Bono Neutral. Doc. [3].

That request is premature: Defendant has not yet been served nor responded to the Complaint,

and the Court has not issued a case management order. Therefore, the motion will be denied.

−5−

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court

Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Doc. [2]) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Pro Bono

Neutral (Doc. [3]) is DENIED without prejudice as premature.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 8§ 2000e, et seg., for employment discrimination based on gender is

DISMISSED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e).

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall issue process or cause process

to issue upon Defendant SSM Healthcare Corporation at the registered address of 120 S. Central

Avenue, Clayton, Missouri 63105.

An Order of Partial Dismissal shall accompany this Memorandum and Order.

Dated this 6" day of November, 2020.

bok fb,e

SARAH E. PITLYK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

—6—