United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Northern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION  TO
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THE COURT is the Motion  to Dismiss filed by Defendant
Minact Logistical Services, LLC (“Minact”).
Plaintiff Kimberly Edwards (“Edwards”), a former
employee of Minact, alleges that Minact committed a litany of
wrongs against her, including discriminating and retaliating
against her, withholding her overtime wages, denying her sick
leave, and violating her privacy. Minact seeks dismissal of
Edwards' Complaint on grounds that she has failed to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted and failed to
timely file her claims. After due consideration of the
record, the submissions on file, and relevant legal
authority, the Court finds that Minact's Motion 
should be granted in part and denied in part.
November 15, 2017, Edwards filed a pro se pleading, entitled
Complaint  for Violation of Fair Labor Standards, against
Minact. Compl.  at 1. The Complaint alleges that Edwards
worked as a material handler and forklift operator for
Minact, id. at 3, and that Minact failed to pay her
required overtime wages, id. at 4. Edwards claims
that from April 14, 2014, to August 18, 2016, she worked
forty to sixty hours a week, but there were instances when
she was not paid for overtime hours. Id. Edwards
asserts that she has paycheck stubs to prove her claims.
to the Complaint is a charge of discrimination form that
Edwards submitted to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”) on August 7, 2017. EEOC
Charge [1-1]. In this form, Edwards states that Minact hired
her on March 2, 2014, as a material handler. Id. On
March 18, 2016, Minact allegedly denied Edwards a transfer to
a welding position, although she was qualified for the
position, because of her sex and race, in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act. Id. The EEOC charge
further contends that on August 15, 2016, Minact terminated
Edwards' employment. Id. Edwards allegedly did
not receive her full wages on her last paycheck,
id., and she claims that Minact retaliated against
her for complaining to the human resources department about
the problems she suffered on the job, and discriminated
against her because she is a Baptist, heterosexual, young,
and married, id.
EEOC “Intake Questionnaire” is also attached to
the Complaint, Questionnaire [1-3] at 1, and claims that
Edwards' rate of pay was $10.40 when she was hired and that
her last pay rate was $15.00, id. Edwards wrote in
her response to the Questionnaire that she wanted to sue
Minact for labor law violations and discrimination.
Id. at 4. The EEOC determined that Edwards'
claim was not timely filed and mailed her a Dismissal and
Notice of Rights on August 10, 2017. EEOC Not. [1-2] at 1.
last attachment to Edwards' Complaint is a letter she
wrote to her congressional representative on August 4, 2017,
Letter [1-4], in which she contends that some days she told
her supervisor that he had “left off” her
overtime that “never got reimbursed, ”
id. at 3. Edwards next asserts that she
“ask[ed] for the leave for my son and dad, the sick
leave thing, I was denied that.” Id. Edwards
further maintains that her privacy was violated during her
employment when Minact employees monitored her house,
installed a listening device on her forklift to eavesdrop on
her, and hacked into her email and phone to listen to her
conversations and view her messages, pictures, and videos.
Id. at 2-3.
Minact's Motion to Dismiss
January 18, 2018, Minact filed a Motion  to Dismiss.
Minact first contends that Edwards' conclusory
allegations that she was denied overtime are insufficient to
state a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
Def.'s Mem.  at 4. Minact also argues that Edwards is
procedurally barred from asserting any discrimination claims
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2, or under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq.,
because she filed her EEOC charge more than 180 days after
the alleged discriminatory conduct occurred, and also failed
to file her Complaint in this Court within ninety days of
receiving her dismissal notice from the EEOC. Id. at
8. Alternatively, Minact posits that Edwards' Complaint
fails to state a plausible claim for discrimination or
retaliation because she was not within the protected class
under the ADEA and, with regard to her Title VII claims, she
has not alleged that other similarly situated employees of a
different race, sex, or religion were hired for the position
she sought. Id. at 10-11.
extent Edwards may be advancing a claim under the Family
Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. §
2601, et seq., Minact contends that Edwards'
conclusory reference to being denied sick leave is
insufficient to state a plausible claim for relief.
Id. at 16-17. Minact lastly argues that to the
extent Edwards brings a claim for invasion of privacy under
state law, such claim is time-barred by the applicable
statute of limitations. Id. at 17.
date, Edwards has not responded to Minact's Motion to