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.

Smith v. Novitex Enterprise Solutions

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

February 16, 2017

Elaine Smith, Plaintiff,
v.
Novitex Enterprise Solutions, Defendant.

          OPINION & ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

          Sean F. Cox U.S. District Judge

         Plaintiff Elaine Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, filed this action against Defendant Novitex Enterprise Solutions, Inc.[1] (“Defendant”) alleging employment discrimination, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (“ADA”).

         Currently before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. # 9, Def.'s Br.). Defendant seeks dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint on two grounds: (1) Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her ADA claims; and (2) assuming Plaintiff did exhaust her administrative remedies, her complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff has filed a response in opposition to Defendant's motion. (Doc. # 15, Pl.'s Resp.). Plaintiff's response includes a myriad of factual allegations not contained in her original complaint. Defendants have filed a reply. (Doc. # 17, Def.'s Reply).

         The Court finds that oral argument would not significantly aid in the decisional process and therefore orders that the instant motion will be decided upon the briefs. See E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(f). The Court shall GRANT Defendant's Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the ADA.

         BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is appearing pro se in this matter. Plaintiff was previously employed by Defendant Novitex Enterprises Solutions, Inc. After Plaintiff was terminated, she filed charge of discrimination with the EEOC.[2] (Ex. B to Def.'s Br., EEOC Charge).

         Plaintiff's EEOC Charge was brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. In the section of the charge where Plaintiff marked what the discrimination was based on, Plaintiff marked the boxes for “race, ” “color, ” “sex” and “age.” Specifically, Plaintiff alleged:

I began my employment with the above referenced employer in or around April, 1998. My most recent position was Service Delivery Manager II.
During my employment, I was subjected to sexual harassment. I complained, to no avail. Subsequently, I was assigned to a less desirable assignment and subjected to different terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to a heavier work load. On or about June 24, 2015, I was discharged.
I believe I have been sexually harassed, assigned to a less desirable location, subjected to different terms and conditions of employment and discharged due to my race, African American, sex, female, color, darker skinned and in retaliation for engaging in a protected activity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and due to my age, 45, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended.

(EEOC Charge at 3).

         On June 10, 2016, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights. (Ex. C to Def.'s Br.). Plaintiff subsequently filed the a “Complaint for Employment Discrimination” on September 8, 2016. (Doc. # 1, Pl.'s Compl.). Plaintiff's complaint names Novitex Enterprise Solutions as the sole defendant in this action. Plaintiff brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112 to 12117. (Id. at 4). Plaintiff alleges that she suffers from depression and anxiety and that Defendant has discriminated against her because of her disability. Plaintiff's complaint alleges the following claims: (1) failure to hire; (2) termination of employment; (3) failure to accommodate disability; and (4) unequal terms and conditions of employment. (Id. at 5). Plaintiff alleges the following facts in relation to this action:

I was diagnosed November 2011 with major depression, PTSD and anxiety. I returned to work Jan. 2012 and requested accommodations [sic] I was a supervisor, then a SDM1 [sic] then a SDMII (Service Delivery Mgr [sic] II) even thou [sic] I requested lighter duty I was given a heavier workload.

(Id. at 6). Plaintiff's complaint indicates that she was issued an EEOC right to sue letter on June 10, 2015.[3] (Id. at 7). Plaintiff seeks “lost wages” and wants Defendants to ...


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.