United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
STANLEY E. HAYWARD, Plaintiff,
CHEMOURS COMPANY, Defendant.
H. MAYS, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the Court are four motions. First is Defendant Chemours
Company's Motion to Dismiss, filed on May 23, 2017. (ECF
is Defendant's Amended Motion to Dismiss, filed on May
23, 2017. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff Stanley E. Hayward
responded on November 17, 2017. (ECF No. 25.) Defendant
replied on December 6, 2017. (ECF No. 33.)
is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Re-Issue Summons and
Obtain Proper Service on Chemours Company (“Motion to
ReIssue Summons”), filed on November 17, 2017. (ECF No.
26.) Defendant responded on December 1, 2017. (ECF No. 31.)
is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint, filed on November 17, 2017. (ECF No. 27.)
Defendant responded on December 1, 2017. (ECF No. 30.)
reasons discussed below, Plaintiff's Motion to ReIssue
Summons is GRANTED, and the Motion for Leave to File Amended
Complaint is GRANTED insofar as it claims race discrimination
and DENIED insofar as it claims color discrimination.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Amended Motion to
Dismiss are DENIED AS MOOT.
August 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint.
(ECF No. 1.) The complaint alleges that Defendant violated
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
(“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1), by
refusing to promote Plaintiff on the basis of his race.
(Id. at 1, 3-4.) Also on August 26, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (“Motion for Leave”). (ECF No. 2.)
On September 2, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion
for Leave and directed Plaintiff to pay the filing fee. (ECF
No. 7.) On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff paid the filing fee.
(ECF No. 8.)
February 15, 2017, United States Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham
entered an Order directing the Clerk of the Court to provide
Plaintiff with a blank summons. (ECF No. 10 at 25.) The Order
required Plaintiff to serve Defendant within 90 days from the
receipt of the blank summons. (Id. at 26.)
March 20, 2017,  Plaintiff served Defendant's counsel
with the summons. (ECF No. 12.) Defendant represents that it
did not receive a copy of the complaint with service. (ECF
No. 16-2 at 64.) Defendant represents that it contacted
Plaintiff and requested a copy of the summons and the
complaint. (Id.) Defendant represents that, on May
3, 2017, it received a copy of the summons and an altered
copy of the complaint. (Id.; ECF No. 16-1.)
Defendant contends that the complaint it received on May 3,
2017, differed from the complaint Plaintiff filed with the
Court on August 26, 2016. (ECF No. 16-2 at 64-65.)
23, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 15.)
The same day, Defendant filed an Amended Motion to Dismiss.
(ECF No. 16; cf. ECF No. 16-2.) On September 6, 2017, counsel
entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. (ECF No. 20.)
Plaintiff responded to the Motion to Dismiss and Amended
Motion to Dismiss on November 17, 2017. (ECF No. 25; see also
ECF No. 25-1.) Defendants replied on December 6, 2017. (ECF
November 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Re-Issue
Summons and Motion for Leave to File Amended Com plaint. (ECF
No. 27; ECF No. 26.) On December 1, Defendant responded to
the Motion to Re-Issue Summons and to the Motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 31; ECF No. 30.)
brings suit under Title VII. Federal courts do not have
jurisdiction over claims brought under Title VII
“‘unless the claimant explicitly files the claim
in an EEOC charge or the claim can reasonably be expected to
grow out of the EEOC charge.'” Jones v. Sumser
Retirement Village, 209 F.3d 851, 853 (6th Cir. 2000)
(quoting Abeita v. Transamerica Mailings, Inc., 159
F.3d 246, 254 (6th Cir. 1998)). In a deferral state such as
Tennessee, a plaintiff “must file a formal charge of
discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) or the Tennessee Human Rights
Commission within three hundred (300) days of the allegedly
discriminatory action, and must commence a civil action
within ninety (90) days of receipt of the right to sue
letter.” McNeil v. City of Memphis, 2007 WL
10849852 at *1 (W.D. Tenn. June 25, 2007) (internal citations
filed his EEOC Charge on May 23, 2016. (ECF No. 1-1 at 8.)
The EEOC Charge alleges that Plaintiff was discriminated
against on March 18, 2016. (ECF No. 1-1 at 8.)
Plaintiff's EEOC Charge was timely.
EEOC issued its notice of right to sue on June 2, 2016.
(Id. at 10.) Plaintiff filed his complaint on August
26, 2016. ...