United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division
J. Dlott, United States District Judge.
matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss (Doc. 11). The Equal Opportunity Employment
Commission (“EEOC”) has sued Defendants R&L
Carriers Shared Services, LLC and R&L Carriers, Inc. for
employment discrimination in violation of Title VII. (Doc.
1.) Defendants move for dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons
that follow, the Court ORDERS the EEOC to
file an amended complaint within fourteen days of the date of
this Order and DENIES AS MOOT the Motion to
EEOC filed its Complaint on August 2, 2017 against Defendants
“to correct unlawful employment practices based on sex
and to provide relief to a class of female applicants and
deterred female applicants who were adversely affected by
such practices.” (Doc. 1 at PageID 1.) The sole factual
allegation of wrongdoing is as follows:
13. Since at least January 1, 2010, Defendants have engaged
in unlawful employment practices at their Wilmington, Ohio,
location in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42
U.S.C. § 2000(e)-2(a) [sic]. These practices
include, but are not limited to, refusing to hire women as
dockworkers or loaders.
(Id. at PageID 3.) The EEOC seeks injunctive relief,
compensatory damages, and punitive damages. (Id. at
have moved to dismiss the Complaint on the grounds that the
EEOC has failed to state a plausible claim for relief. The
EEOC responds that its pleading is sufficient, but it
requests leave to amend the Complaint if the Court determines
it is insufficient. (Doc. 14 at PageID 66-67.) The EEOC did
not file a proposed amended pleading. The matter is fully
briefed and ripe for adjudication.
STANDARDS OF LAW
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to
dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To
withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint must comply with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires “a
short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009) (quoting Rule 8(a)).
complaint must include sufficient facts to state a claim that
is plausible on its face and not speculative. Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 570
(2007). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678. Mere “labels and conclusions [or] a formulaic
recitation of the elements of a cause of action” will
not suffice. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. A complaint
must contain “either direct or inferential allegations
respecting all material elements to sustain a recovery under
some viable legal theory.” DiGeronimo Aggregates,
LLC v. Zemla, 763 F.3d 506, 509 (6th Cir. 2014)
(citation omitted). However, it “does not need detailed
factual allegations” or “heightened fact pleading
of specifics.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 570.
A district court examining the sufficiency of a complaint
must accept well-pleaded facts as true, but not legal
conclusions or legal conclusions couched as factual
allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79;
DiGeronimo Aggregates, 763 F.3d at 509.
Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) allows a party to amend its
pleading with the leave of the Court. A district court
“should freely grant leave when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). However, “a
party must act with due diligence if it intends to take
advantage of the Rule's liberality.” U.S. v.
Midwest Suspension & Brake, 49 F.3d 1197, 1202 (6th
Cir. 1995). In determining whether justice requires leave to
amend, a district court can consider whether allowing the
amendment will result in undue prejudice to the opposing
party and whether the moving party has exhibited undue delay,
bad faith, or a dilatory motive. Foman v. Davis, 371
U.S. 178, 182 (1962). A party seeking leave to amend should
file a separate motion and attach a proposed amended
pleading. See, e.g., C&L Ward
Bros., Co. v. Outsource Solutions, Inc., 547 Fed.Appx.
741, 745 (6th Cir. 2013) (“A properly filed motion for
leave complete with an indication of the grounds upon which
the amendment is sought and the general contents of the
amendment is preferable.”); Begala v. PNC Bank,
Ohio, Nat'l Ass'n, 214 F.3d 776, 784 (6th Cir.
2000) (finding the district court did not err in denying
leave to amend to plaintiffs who informally requested leave
to amend in a memorandum in opposition to a dismissal
argue that the Complaint does not contain sufficient factual
allegations to raise the right to relief above the
speculative level to the required plausibility level. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555, 570. They point out that a sister district court within
the Sixth Circuit dismissed an EEOC complaint as insufficient
containing this similar single factual allegation:
7. On or about September 14, 2009, Defendant Employer engaged
in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section
701 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2(a)(1), by discriminating against Lamond- Broughton on
the basis of her sex by refusing to hire her as ...