Tenisha White sued Ameren and Iconma, LLC in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of racial, gender, and age discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967. Defendants filed a joint motion to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint, Defendant Iconma moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, and Defendant Ameren moved for summary judgment.
Factual Overview
Plaintiff, Tenisha White, applied for a paralegal position via the internet and was interviewed and offered a position by Iconma, LLC on March 28, 2022. In April 2022, Plaintiff reached out to Ameren via email and phone. Plaintiff also spoke with Iconma’s HR Manager, who told her that Ameren was a client. Ameren contracts with Guidant Global to recruit temporary workers on an as-needed basis. In March 2022, Ameren contacted Guidant to post and recruit for a temporary Paralegal I position. Guidant collected resumes and submitted the top two candidates to Ameren. Plaintiff’s resume was never sent to Ameren, and Ameren was unaware of Plaintiff’s interest in the position or any of her protected characteristics prior to the lawsuit.
Legal Analysis
Motion to Strike Amended Complaint: The court granted Defendants’ joint motion to strike Plaintiff’s amended complaint because Plaintiff failed to seek leave of the court or obtain written consent from the parties before filing the amended complaint, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). Additionally, Plaintiff did not comply with the local rules regarding underlining new material and striking through removed material in the amended pleading.
Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Iconma: The court granted Iconma’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies against Iconma. Plaintiff’s EEOC charge named only Ameren as the respondent and did not include any claims against Iconma or set forth a connection between Ameren and Iconma.
Summary Judgment: The court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment because Plaintiff failed to provide a statement of uncontroverted material facts and cited no specific relevant case law establishing her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.
The court granted Ameren’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Title VII and ADEA claims. The undisputed facts showed that Plaintiff never applied for a position with Ameren, and Ameren was unaware of Plaintiff’s interest in the position. Therefore, Plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII or the ADEA. Additionally, Plaintiff presented no evidence of any adverse action taken by Ameren or any protected activity she engaged in, failing to support a retaliation claim.
The court concluded that Defendant Iconma’s motion to dismiss and Defendant Ameren’s motion for summary judgment were granted, while Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied.
Schrag on Law 