Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

·
{ T - ' · Case 3:03-cv—01049—RNC Document 15 Filed 05/17/2004 Page1 0f1
{ E E LAW DEPARTMENT
xr N n A O , , _,
gg U5 0 nizrisr AEA more
ri S ‘ urvrreo smrss `''[ ‘
, O
{ 0 rrli lU11IiIi'U¤l
I ii A
C0 {F [I {fi`}-§,r·._i· it it wit;
5: H lg hg`:
8 3 2 May 13, 2004 J`°' !"%""`·"—{ Y —i*~’iF¥`i F
0 JP, ,_, {
JJ C; M .
{ E 3 .§Honorable Robert V. Chatigny
, g gr United States District Court {
y Li District of Connecticut I
8 {EI 450 Main Street
I rg cg Hartford, CT 06103 --
{ ru 0.
rg its Re: Denise Correa v. John E. Potter {
{ Q Er Civil Action No. 3;03CV1049 (RNC) {
""’ 0
{ gi Dear Judge Chatigny: {
3 I
TQ . In accordance with the Court’s Order on Pretrial Deadlines dated June 13, 2003, {
org the Defendant, Postmaster General, wrote Plaintiffs counsel on il/lay 3, 2004 about the ·
0 . .
0 2 Defendant’s intention to file a motion to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)1, and the grounds {
ro . for that motion. At this time, Defendant requests a prehearing conference to discuss I
¤ {
ii) 2 the Defendant’s motion. Defendant would like to file this motion in lieu of answering the ,
rg 2 Complaint. The general basis for the motion is as follows.
rz :»·
“‘ R Contrary to Plaintiffs allegation in Paragraph 5 of her Complaint, the Plaintiff ~
P 2 never initiated administrative remedies under Title VII with regard to any of her
BO d"`t` I` d`hfdl I tUdB GS/-\,tl
LL, rscrrmrna ron carms regar ing er e era emp oymen. n er rown v. e a.,
QQ fg 425 U.S. 820 (1976), and its progeny, exhaustion of administrative EEO remedies is ’
m M required absent tolling circumstances not evidenced by the Complaint, or otherwise {
Ti O present in this case. Sy: Briones v. Runyon, 101 F.3d 287, 289—29O (2d Cir. 1996); ,
EE § Van Zant v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, etal., 80 F.3d 708, 712 (2d Cir. 1996). {
-
“’ E Since Title VII is the exclusive, preemptive remedy for claims of discrimination in
.54 .-i _ _
Q *6* federal employment, the state and common-law clarms pleaded in Counts IV-VII of the :
P E complaint are pre—empted by Title VII. See Rivera v. Heyman, 157 F.3d 101, 105 (2d {
Q ’g Cir. 1998); Colon v. USPS, 95 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87-9 (D. Conn. 1999).
.'-I U}
; Q? In addition, the claims against the individual defendant, retired postal supervisor
$ & Ron DeMaida,_cann0t be brought in this Title VII action because the Postmaster
U {U Generalfts thegonly proper party in a Title Vll suit against the Postal Service.
E 5 Q S; r
ri g EM ffiieig t
_;y,· _g I rziitjgj -
"*' °-E" *1 :.5*, 1
g % u~Gnir=r=rr~1§`bAo htdrttlri
N E Wnvosongf 0600641170 -
rj?} FAx: (860)·285-@397 {
"' it
% 0 G
— ·- -7 ~- -. A . .7 - 7 y - T A A- ·» ; j ;..e;—-agi