Plaintiff’s Factual Allegations
Darnetta Carter, an African American woman and former employee of Centene Management Company, LLC (“Centene”), alleged retaliation in her workplace. Her claims stemmed from a charge of discrimination filed with the Missouri Commission for Human Rights (“MCHR”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on September 12, 2019, known as the “2019 charge”. This charge followed an earlier charge of race discrimination filed in February 2018, known as the “2018 charge”. In the 2019 charge, Carter claimed that Centene began retaliating against her at the end of 2018 for filing the 2018 charge. She reported being constantly monitored, receiving complaints about her writing and email response times, and being subject to unfair treatment, including being overlooked for a position due to disciplinary write-ups.
Legal Issues and Court Rulings
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies: The court noted that Carter’s amended complaint, which included claims under Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), failed to establish that she had exhausted her administrative remedies for these claims. Her 2019 EEOC charge did not state discrimination based on race, color, age, or disability, thus leading to the dismissal of these claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
Retaliation Claim Analysis: To establish a retaliation claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they filed a charge of discrimination, that the employer took adverse action against them, and that there was a causal link between the filing and the adverse action. In Carter’s case, the court found that she failed to state sufficient facts to support a retaliation claim. Her allegations in the 2019 charge, such as increased monitoring and criticisms, did not meet the standard for an adverse employment action as defined by law.
Absence of Causal Connection: The court also found a lack of causal connection between the alleged adverse actions and the filing of her 2018 charge. The time gap between the charge and the alleged adverse actions was found too long to infer a retaliatory motive.
Conclusion The court concluded that Carter’s amended complaint did not present sufficient factual details to support her claims under Title VII, ADA, ADEA, or for retaliation. As such, Centene’s motion to dismiss was granted, and Carter’s complaint was dismissed in its entirety for failure to state a claim. The dismissal of the complaint also rendered Centene’s motion to dismiss the original complaint moot.
Schrag on Law 