Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Larry A. Fields v. Colgate Palmolive Company

December 15, 2010

LARRY A. FIELDS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
COLGATE PALMOLIVE COMPANY, DEFENDANT,



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sheridan, U.S.D.J.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

This matter comes before the Court on two motions: (1) Defendant Colgate Palmolive Company's ("Defendant") motion to dismiss ("Defendant's Motion to Dismiss"); and (2) Plaintiff Larry A. Fields's ("Plaintiff") cross-motion for leave to file an amended complaint ("Plaintiff's Cross-Motion"). On January 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant ("Plaintiff's Complaint") in which Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to hired Plaintiff on account of Plaintiff's race, color, and sex. In addition, Plaintiff alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination ("Plaintiff's Charge")*fn1 that Defendant subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment and wrongfully terminated Plaintiff's employment with Defendant. On June 15, 2010, Defendant filed Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, this Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and denies Plaintiff's Cross-Motion.

I. Statement of the Facts

Plaintiff is a 47 year-old African-American male. Defendant is a corporation with an office located in New Jersey. In October 2007, Adecco Employment Services, a temporary employment agency (the "Temporary Employment Agency"), placed Plaintiff in a temporary position with Defendant as a chemist. Plaintiff contends that Defendant "subjected [Plaintiff] to a hostile work environment" after Plaintiff began working at Defendant. On or about June 2008, Plaintiff applied for a permanent position as a chemist with Defendant. Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff was adequately trained for this permanent chemist position, and had already worked one year as a temporary employee in this chemist position.

In October 2008, Defendant rejected Plaintiff's application for the permanent chemist position. Plaintiff contends that Defendant gave the permanent chemist position to an outside applicant who, according to Plaintiff, was not trained for the permanent chemist position. Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiff was qualified for the permanent chemist position. Plaintiff states that Defendant did not hire Plaintiff for this position on account of Plaintiff's race, color, and sex.

On January 4, 2009, the Temporary Employment Agency notified Plaintiff that Defendant no longer required Plaintiff's temporary services. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant wrongfully terminated Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes that temporary employees continue to work at Defendant.

II. Legal Discussion

Standard on a Motion to Dismiss

When evaluating a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court is required to accept as true all allegations in the pleading and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom, and to view such allegations and inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-50 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Oshiver v. Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384 (3d Cir. 1994). A cause of action should be dismissed only if the alleged facts, taken as true, fail to state a claim. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1950.

While a court will accept well-pled allegations as true for the purposes of the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a court will not accept bald assertions, unsupported conclusions, unwarranted inferences, or sweeping legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations. See Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; Morse v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 132 F.3d 902, 906 (3d Cir.1997). On the contrary, "[t]he pleader is required to 'set forth sufficient information to outline the elements of [its] claim or to permit inferences to be drawn that these elements exist'." Kost v. Kozakiewicz, 1 F.3d 176, 183 (3d Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Plaintiff's Claim for Failure to Hire Is Dismissed Because Plaintiff's Claim Is Barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Because Plaintiff alleges a federal employment discrimination claim, Plaintiff needed to file

Plaintiff's Charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC") within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment action. See 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-(5)(e)(1). As a result of this strict statutory requirement, Plaintiff was required to file Plaintiff's Charge within 300 days of the date on which Defendant allegedly wrongfully failed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.