United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
September 6, 2005.
JOSEPH T. WARESAK, Plaintiff,
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: TERRENCE F. McVERRY, District Judge
MEMORANDUM ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court for disposition is the unopposed
MOTION TO DISMISS filed by Defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, with brief in support (Document Nos. 16 and
17, respectively). After careful consideration, the Court will
grant the Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiff has filed a four-count Amended Complaint against
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm") in
which he alleges religious discrimination in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. State Farm contends that
Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be dismissed for failure to
exhaust administrative remedies. The Court agrees.
The claims of this lawsuit arise out of Plaintiff's March 13,
2003 demotion and his subsequent resignation allegedly prompted
by work place harassment which occurred after his demotion.
Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on February 27, 2004
in which he alleged that he was the victim of religious
discrimination and retaliation when he was demoted on March 13,
2003. The EEOC charge did not challenge the alleged subsequent workplace
harassment/constructive discharge which is now also raised in
the Amended Complaint.
It is well established that a plaintiff alleging violations of
Title VII must exhaust administrative remedies before filing a
suit in federal court. Ostapowicz v. Johnson Bronze Co.,
541 F.2d 394, 398 (3d Cir. 1976). A plaintiff must file a timely
charge of discrimination with the EEOC in order to successfully
exhaust administrative remedies. Id. Failure to file a timely
charge with the EEOC precludes a plaintiff from bringing a
federal lawsuit in which he or she alleges discriminatory
conduct. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). In Pennsylvania, for a charge to
be timely, it must be filed with the EEOC no later than 300 days
after the challenged unlawful employment practice.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e).
As stated supra, Plaintiff filed his charge of discrimination
with the EEOC on February 27, 2004, and his sole allegation of
discrimination in that charge concerned his March 13, 2003
demotion. February 27, 2004 was 351 days after March 13, 2003.
Clearly outside the 300-day window for filing an EEOC claim.
Because Plaintiff filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days
after the only discriminatory act challenged, the Court finds and
rules that his Title VII claims are untimely and Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint against State Farm will be dismissed in its
entirety with prejudice. AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2005, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the unopposed Motion to
Dismiss filed by State Farm Automobile Insurance Company is
GRANTED and this action is dismissed with prejudice forthwith.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.