United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
STEPHEN P. FRIOT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
action arises out of plaintiff Edwin Bhatti's employment
with defendant SSM Health Care of Oklahoma, Inc., d/b/a Saint
moves under Rule 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P., for partial
dismissal of the complaint. Doc. no. 11. Defendant seeks
dismissal of claims brought under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), the Americans With
Disabilities Act (ADA), the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA) and the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act
(OADA). Defendant argues that in light of the last
date of discrimination identified by plaintiff on his charge
filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), plaintiff waited too long to file that charge so that
the challenged claims should be dismissed as untimely.
Plaintiff responds, objecting to dismissal. Doc. no. 17.
Defendant filed a reply brief. Doc. no. 18.
reasons stated below, the motion will be denied.
inquiry under Rule 12(b)(6) is whether the complaint contains
enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on
its face. Ridge at Red Hawk, L.L.C. v. Schneider,
493 F.3d 1174, 1177 (10th Cir., 2007), quoting
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 547
(2007). To survive a motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must
nudge his claims across the line from conceivable to
plausible. Id. The mere metaphysical possibility
that some plaintiff could prove some set of facts in support
of the pleaded claims is insufficient; the complaint must
give the court reason to believe that this plaintiff has a
reasonable likelihood of mustering factual support for these
claims. Ridge at Red Hawk, 493 F.3d at 1177.
conducting its review, the court assumes the truth of the
plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations and views
them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.
Id. Pleadings that are no more than legal
conclusions are not entitled to the assumption of truth;
while legal conclusions can provide the framework of a
complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations.
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.662, 664 (2009). When
there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should
assume their veracity and then determine whether they
plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief. Id.
The court will disregard mere “labels and
conclusions” and “[t]hreadbare recitals of the
elements of a cause of action” to determine if what
remains meets the standard of plausibility. Twombly,
550 U.S. at 555; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible
claim for relief will … be a context-specific task
that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial
experience and common sense.” Id. at 679.
Oklahoma is a deferral state, Title VII requires claimants to
file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC or with the
Oklahoma Attorney General's Office of Civil Rights
Enforcement (OCRE) within 300 days of the alleged unlawful
practice. Thuc Trans Sonic Indus. Servs., Inc., 767
F.Supp.2d 1217, 1224 n.1 (W.D. Okla. 2011). The same time
limit applies to claims brought under the ADA and the ADEA.
Chaney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 6692108 at
*2 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 3, 2015) (ADA); Ingram v. Pre-Paid
Legal Servs., Inc., 4 F.Supp.2d 1303, 1308 (E.D. Okla.
May 15, 1998) (ADEA). For an OADA claim, a charge must be
filed with the OCRE within 180 days of the alleged unlawful
practice. 25 O.S.Supp. 2013 §1350(B).
complaint alleges that “Mr. Bhatti has complied with
all statutory prerequisites to filing this action.”
Doc. no. 1, ¶ 25. This allegation is conclusory and is
disregarded for present purposes. The complaint refers to the
charge of discrimination which plaintiff filed with the EEOC,
and it refers to the right to sue letter issued by the EEOC.
Id., ¶¶26-27. The complaint, however,
alleges nothing about when the EEOC charge was filed or its
timeliness in relation to the last date of alleged
stage, the court may go outside the pleadings to consider
documents which are referenced in the complaint and central
to it, without converting the motion to one for summary
judgment. Accordingly, the court is permitted to consider the
EEOC charge filed by Mr. Bhatti in his effort to exhaust his
administrative remedies. That charge has been submitted by
the defendant. Doc. no. 11-1.
EEOC charge shows March 23, 2018 as the latest date
on which plaintiff claims discrimination took place. The EEOC
charge also shows that it was signed by Mr. Bhatti on
March 29, 2019. Given these dates, the charge shows
that it was not filed with the ...