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.

Karmid v. Midwest Regional Medical Center LLC

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

November 17, 2017

KATHY KARMID, Plaintiff,
v.
MIDWEST REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, d/b/a ALLIANCE HEALTH MIDWEST, Defendant.

          ORDER

          VICKI MILES-LAGRANGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is the Defendant Midwest Regional Medical Center's (“Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss or Stay, filed on September 5, 2017. Plaintiff Kathy Karmid (“Plaintiff”) filed a response and objection on September 20, 2017. Defendant filed a reply on September 27, 2017. Having reviewed the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination. The Court finds an evidentiary hearing is not necessary.

         I. Introduction

         Plaintiff filed her Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) and received her Notice of Right to Sue (“Notice”) from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on March 10, 2017. Plaintiff's Charge alleged she was paid less than younger co-workers who had less education, professional experience or licenses after she was hired. See Charge of Discrimination, Exh. 1, Plaintiff's Response and Objection to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Stay (“Response”).

         Defendant moves to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint because the EEOC issued Plaintiff her Charge and Notice on the same day, March 10, 2017. Therefore, Defendant argues the EEOC failed to carry out its statutorily prescribed obligations to notify the charged employer, investigate the charge, and attempt informal methods of dispute resolution, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2). Defendant further argues the EEOC's failure to fulfill its statutory responsibilities prejudiced Defendant because it could not determine how to answer Plaintiff's allegations and had to incur numerous expenses.

         Due to the EEOC's abdication of its responsibilities, Defendant claims Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and this case should be dismissed or in the alternative stayed and Plaintiff ordered to resubmit her Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC so it can fulfill its statutory obligation. Defendant further contends this Court must dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

         II. Standard for Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1)

         Regarding the standard for determining whether to dismiss a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the United States Supreme Court has held that the party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over her claims. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).

Rule 12(b)(1) motions generally take one or two forms. First, a moving party may make a facial attack on the complaint's allegations as to the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. In reviewing a facial attack, the district court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true. Second, a party may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and challenge the facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction is based. . . . In reviewing a factual attack, a court has wide discretion to allow affidavits, other documents, and a limited evidentiary hearing to resolve disputed jurisdictional facts. In the course of a factual attack under Rule 12(b)(1), a court's reference to evidence outside the pleadings does not convert the motion into a Rule 56 motion.

Stuart v. Colo. Interstate Gas Co., 271 F.3d 1221, 1225 (10th Cir. 2001) (internal quotations and citations omitted); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Unit Drilling Co., 4 F.Supp.3d 1257, 1261 (N.D. Okla. 2013).

         III. Discussion

         Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, a plaintiff must obtain a right to sue letter from the EEOC as a prerequisite to suit. See Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623 et seq.[1]

         Plaintiff asserts she exhausted her administrative remedies when she filed her Charge of Discrimination to the EEOC on March 10, 2017 and received her Notice of Right to Sue on the same day, March 10, 2017. Exhs.1, 2 to Plaintiff's Response. It is indisputable that Plaintiff submitted her Charge with the EEOC, well within the 300 days of Plaintiff discovering the alleged unlawful practice of discrimination. Subsequently, the EEOC issued a Notice to Plaintiff. Plaintiff then filed suit in district court within ninety (90) days of the issuance of the Notice. See Petition Ex.2 [Docket no. 1]. There is no dispute that Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies.

         Defendant argues, however, that the EEOC failed to fulfill its statutory obligation to the employer prior 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.