United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO
GUIROLA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THE COURT is the  Motion to Dismiss filed by the
defendant, Huntington Ingalls Industries. Ingalls argues
that: (1) Havard has failed to state facts supporting valid
claims for violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act (ADEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and
the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA); (2) Havard failed to
exhaust his administrative remedies as to his ADEA and ADA
claims; and (3) Havard's FMLA claim is barred by the
statute of limitations. Havard did not file a response in
opposition to the Motion. After reviewing the submissions of
the parties, the record in this matter, and the applicable
law, the Court finds that Ingalls' Motion should be
filed this pro se lawsuit alleging that Ingalls terminated
his employment for excessive absences in violation of the
ADEA, ADA, and FMLA. He claims to suffer from knee pain, back
pain, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Havard was
terminated on January 26, 2016, and he filed this lawsuit on
January 24, 2019. Ingalls filed the present Motion to Dismiss
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).
Rule 12(b)(6) requires a complaint to “contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570
(2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the
plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to
draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable
for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). The court must accept all
well-pleaded facts as true and view those facts in the light
most favorable to the plaintiff. King-White v. Humble
Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754, 758 (5th Cir. 2015).
HAVARD'S ADEA CLAIM
ADEA provides, “It shall be unlawful for an employer .
. . to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual
or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect
to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of
employment, because of such individual's age.” 29
U.S.C. § 623(a). Havard's Complaint fails to state a
plausible ADEA claim because it does not contain any factual
allegations concerning Havard's age or actions taken by
Ingalls due to his age.
addition, a plaintiff alleging age discrimination must file a
timely charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission before filing his lawsuit. 29 U.S.C.
§ 626(d). Charges are untimely unless they are filed
within 180 days after the alleged unlawful practice occurred.
29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1)(A). Havard has not alleged that he
filed an EEOC charge prior to filing this lawsuit, and more
than 180 days have passed since his termination. Therefore,
his ADEA claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
HAVARD'S ADA CLAIM
attempting to assert ADA claims must also exhaust their
administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination
with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged unlawful
employment practice. Patton v. Jacobs Eng'g
Grp., 874 F.3d 437, 443 (5th Cir. 2017). Since Havard
has not alleged that he filed an EEOC charge before he filed
this lawsuit and more than 180 days have passed since
Havard's termination, his ADA claim must be dismissed
HAVARD'S FMLA CLAIM
FMLA provides that employers may not “interfere with,
restrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise,
any [FMLA leave] right.” 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a). Most
FMLA claims must be brought within two years of the alleged
violation, but actions for willful FMLA violations are
subject to a three-year period. 29 U.S.C. § 2617(c).
Ingalls terminated Havard on January 26, 2016, and Havard
filed this lawsuit on January 24, 2019. Therefore, Havard
filed this lawsuit after the two-year limitations period
expired but before the three-year limitations period would
have expired. Ingalls argues that Havard's FMLA claim is
time-barred because he does not make any factual allegations
that would support a finding that Ingalls willfully violated
establish a willful violation of the FMLA, a plaintiff must
show that his employer either “knew or showed reckless
disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was
prohibited by the statute.” Steele v. Leasing
Enters., Ltd., 826 F.3d 237, 248 (5th Cir. 2016).
“A negligent violation is not a willful violation, ...