Jones v. USIC

E.D. Missouri

Jones v. USIC

DecidedJune 25, 2021

Docket4:21-cv-00641

StatusUnknown

This text of Jones v. USIC (Jones v. USIC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. USIC, (E.D. Mo. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

KEVIN JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:21-CV-641-SRC ) USIC, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on its own motion. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., for alleged employment discrimination. “In order to initiate a claim under Title VII a party must timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and receive a right-to-sue letter.” Stuart v. General Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000). Although plaintiff states in his complaint that he has received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), he has not attached a copy of his right- to-sue letter. Nor has he attached a copy of his charge of discrimination. Instead, he has attached an email received from the EEOC stating that the agency has drafted a charge of discrimination against USIC, but that plaintiff must review the draft, sign it, and submit it through the EEOC’s online portal. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with either his right-to-sue letter or a copy of his charge of discrimination. Consequently, the Court orders the plaintiff to supplement the complaint by submitting his right-to-sue letter and a copy of his charge of discrimination within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order so that the Court may ascertain whether plaintiff’s claims in his complaint are timely and reasonably related to the claims outlined in his charge. Duncan v. Delta Consolidated Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2004); Muth v. Cobro Corp., 895 F. Supp. 254, 255-56 (E.D. Mo. 1995). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit a copy of (1) his right-to-sue letter and (2) his charge of discrimination within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs failure to comply with this Court’s Order may result in a dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without further notice. Dated this 25th day of June, 2021.

ll, □□□ STEPHEN R. CLARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

KEVIN JONES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 4:21-CV-641-SRC ) USIC, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on its own motion. Plaintiff brings this action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., for alleged employment discrimination. “In order to initiate a claim under Title VII a party must timely file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and receive a right-to-sue letter.” Stuart v. General Motors Corp., 217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir. 2000). Although plaintiff states in his complaint that he has received a right-to-sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), he has not attached a copy of his right- to-sue letter. Nor has he attached a copy of his charge of discrimination. Instead, he has attached an email received from the EEOC stating that the agency has drafted a charge of discrimination against USIC, but that plaintiff must review the draft, sign it, and submit it through the EEOC’s online portal. See ECF No. 1-1. Plaintiff has not provided the Court with either his right-to-sue letter or a copy of his charge of discrimination. Consequently, the Court orders the plaintiff to supplement the complaint by submitting his right-to-sue letter and a copy of his charge of discrimination within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order so that the Court may ascertain whether plaintiff’s claims in his complaint are timely and reasonably related to the claims outlined in his charge. Duncan v. Delta Consolidated Indus., Inc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1024 (8th Cir. 2004); Muth v. Cobro Corp., 895 F. Supp. 254, 255-56 (E.D. Mo. 1995). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall submit a copy of (1) his right-to-sue letter and (2) his charge of discrimination within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs failure to comply with this Court’s Order may result in a dismissal of this action, without prejudice and without further notice. Dated this 25th day of June, 2021.

ll, □□□ STEPHEN R. CLARK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jones v. USIC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-usic-moed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack