United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
Raymond Jenkins brings this action against defendant
Polysciences, Inc. (“Defendant”) for alleged
discriminatory termination of employment. Plaintiff's
Complaint (ECF 1, “Compl.”) contains two Counts:
(1) Race discrimination, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2; and
(2) Age discrimination, pursuant to the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C § 623.
the Court now is Polysciences' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) (ECF 3, “Def.'s Mot.”).
For the reasons explained below, Polysciences' Motion
will be GRANTED without prejudice.
following facts are taken from the Complaint, and are
accepted as true for purposes of the pending motions.
See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6); United States Express
Lines, Ltd. V. Higgins, 281 F.3d 383, 388 (3d Cir.
2002). Plaintiff is an African-American male and is at least
sixty-six years of age. (Compl., ¶¶ 8-9). Plaintiff
began employment with Polysciences as a Lab Technician in
August of 2000. (Id. ¶ 7). Throughout his
employment with Polysciences, Plaintiff alleges that he
observed Caucasian and younger employees receive promotions
and transfers to better positions, while Plaintiff was not
offered similar opportunities to advance. (Id.
¶¶ 12-15). In addition, Plaintiff alleges that he
was paid less than Caucasian and younger employees, and,
while Caucasian and younger employees received a Christmas
bonus, Plaintiff did not. (Id. ¶ 16-18).
Plaintiff alleges that he was not awarded a Christmas bonus
because of “mistakes” he made, but that the
Caucasian and/or younger employees who did receive the
Christmas bonus “made more or the same or similar
mistakes[.]” (Id. ¶ 19).
February 2016, Plaintiff was given the responsibility of
training a “younger, Caucasian employee.”
(Id. ¶ 21). In the course of training this
employee, Plaintiff “had a verbal argument” with
him “at the warehouse.” (Id. ¶ 21).
A day later, Plaintiff was informed by the Human Resources
department that “he had attempted to instigate a
physical altercation with the younger Caucasian employee,
” which Plaintiff denied. (Id. ¶ 22).
was terminated by Polysciences for “intimidation”
in February 2016, and his responsibilities were
“distributed among Caucasian and younger
employees”. (Id. ¶¶ 22; 24-25, 28).
Although Polysciences has a “progressive disciplinary
policy” that disciplines employees “in stages,
” Plaintiff “was terminated with no prior
progressive discipline.” (Id. ¶ 23-24).
The younger, Caucasian employee involved in the dispute was
not terminated. (Id. ¶ 26).
Procedural History & Jurisdiction
after Plaintiff's termination, Plaintiff filed a timely
complaint and charge of discrimination with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) for
both race and age discrimination. (Id. ¶ 6).
Following receipt of a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC,
Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint. (Id. ¶
6). On January 24, 2017, Polysciences filed a Motion to
Dismiss, alleging that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies with the EEOC and that Plaintiff also
failed to state a claim for race or age discrimination
(See Def's Mot.). Plaintiff filed an Opposition
to Defendant's Motion on February 7, 2017 (ECF 4,
“Pl.'s Opp'n”), to which Defendant filed
a Reply on February 8, 2017. (ECF 5, “Def.'s
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and
venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1441(a).
survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), a complaint must contain sufficient
factual allegations that “state a claim to relief that
is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly,550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A complaint will
satisfy this threshold test for facial plausibility if
“the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is
liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Threadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by
mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”
Id. at 678. While all factual ...