Plaintiff Korry Busch sued defendant AppleCare Service Company, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Missouri Human Rights Act (MHRA). AppleCare moved to dismiss Counts II through VI of Busch’s complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and for a more definite statement of Count I under Rule 12(e).
Factual Overview
Busch, an African-American, began working for AppleCare as an advisor in August 2017. He alleged that he was subjected to different treatment because of his race, received racially insensitive statements, and was disciplined for complaining about the treatment. Busch claimed that the hostile environment caused him to suffer a depressive/anxiety event at work in July 2021, resulting in his collapse and injury. AppleCare allegedly delayed his return to work by requiring medical documentation and failing to provide reasonable accommodations. Busch was suspended on August 19, 2021, and his employment was terminated on September 30, 2021. He also claimed that he complained of unfair labor practices prohibited by the National Labor Relations Act, leading to an NLRB complaint and determination that AppleCare wrongfully engaged in interference and retaliation.
Legal Analysis
Res Judicata – Counts II through VI
AppleCare argued that a settlement agreement executed in the prior NLRB action had res judicata effect on Counts II through VI of Busch’s complaint. The court denied AppleCare’s motion to dismiss on this basis, finding that the parties’ arguments and assertions relied on matters and factual averments outside the complaint, which are more appropriately considered on a motion for summary judgment.
Failure to Exhaust – Counts III through VI
The court found that Busch failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for his ADA claims (Counts III and IV) and MHRA claims (Counts V and VI). Busch’s EEOC charge did not include allegations related to disability discrimination, and he did not receive a right-to-sue letter from the Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) for his MHRA claims. The court dismissed Counts III through VI for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, with the dismissal of Counts V and VI being without prejudice.
More Definite Statement – Count I
The court denied AppleCare’s motion for a more definite statement of Count I, Busch’s Title VII claim of race discrimination. The court found that when read against the backdrop of the complaint’s common allegations of fact and the detailed allegations in the charge of discrimination, Count I provided AppleCare with fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rested.
The court ultimately granted in part and denied in part AppleCare’s motion to dismiss and motion for a more definite statement. The court denied the motion to dismiss based on res judicata, granted the motion to dismiss Counts III through VI for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and denied the motion for a more definite statement of Count I.
Schrag on Law 