United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION & ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION
F. Cox U.S. District Judge
Elaine Smith (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro
se, filed this action against Defendant Novitex
Enterprise Solutions, Inc. (“Defendant”) alleging
employment discrimination, in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. (“ADA”).
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).
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.
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. (Ex. B to
Def.'s Br., EEOC Charge).
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
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).
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
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. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff seeks
“lost wages” and wants Defendants to